Wysong v. Dow Chemical Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an “involuntary leave” interference claim “ripens only when and if the employee seeks FMLA leave at a later date, and such leave is not available because the [employer] wrongfully forced [the employee] to use FMLA leave in the past”
• reasoning that (a)(1)’s “prohibition [against interfering, restraining, or denying the exercise of or attempted exercise of any FMLA right] includes retaliatory discharge for taking leave”
• noting that “[a]n involuntary[ ]leave claim,” alleging that an “employer forces an employee to take FMLA leave,” is “really a type of interference claim”
• stating that “[a]n involuntary-leave claim is really a type of interference claim”
• describing how employer's actions \set in motion an unbroken chain of events\ that culminated in retaliatory discharge
• reciting elements of FMLA interference claim (quoting Cavin v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 346 F.3d 713, 719 (6th Cir. 2003))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).