Everett Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Manufacturing

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the employee had failed to present evidence of unusual circumstances as required to excuse violation of the employer’s call-in requirements
• concluding that “an employer may impose and enforce its own internal notice requirements, even if those requirements go beyond the bare minimum that would generally be sufficient under the FMLA to constitute proper notice”
• finding that employee’s termination for failing to comply with employer’s notice and procedural requirements for claiming FMLA leave did not constitute FMLA interference
• finding that an employer was justified for terminating an employee . . . where the employee “produced no evidence demonstrating the type of ‘unusual circumstance’ that would have justified his failure to follow the call-in requirement
• affirming summary judgment against the plaintiff on an FMLA-interference claim where he “produced no evidence demonstrating the type of ‘unusual circumstances’ that would have justified his failure to follow the call-in requirements of [the company’s] attendance policy”
• an employer may require that an employee support her leave request with medical certification

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).