certain number to get called in and advise the company mr phillips follow that policy he called the company in this case united trailer united trailer and knowledge they received a phone call and wrote down that  not his injury a role was to have a mil a standard where he would be qualify for help in the five days they did nothing along based upon that in that phone call just reporting the ribbon jury right that's correct and what would your answer was would your position be the same if he called and said i sprained my ankle playing basketball last night you know you are ok why because i don't think that would be an injury which would trigger an  notice to the employer that a sprained ankle given the type of job that person did we have to take all those things into consideration to determine whether or not a sprained ankle would be something that  was not covered by f e m l the thing that i think was at issue was was that not a sufficient given another hypothetical he didn't call then that day said he had a headache and the company quite well knew what his responsibilities were to their production line what his job description now a broken rib is not something minor we're not going to get up the next day and go back to work typically if you have a broken wrist and he didn't show because he was injured and so when he went back to work taking them taking with him his doctors this news from dr berardi he was terminated now that i somehow there got some confusion in there they say that they sent mr philips notice to his home that he was terminated but that wasn't the case he never received anything prior to him going into work with his medical spears that at that point started this whole situation because it's my contention that once he gave them no they had to do it now they want this court to say well we not go look at the responsibilities we don't trade it we just go we want you to focus on fact that really the crux of their call it policy fifteen minutes before your ship now and someone calls in and put them on notice that i'm dealing with a serious health condition that inhibited my ability to do my social function  you know the calls weren't like that go right to the calls were more and more limited to just i don't like rib or rib problem or so i think right it wasn't a you know extended discussion with someone in h r explaining what happened and  my name is mike palmer i represent united trailer the appellee in this case your honors mr phillips the state cannot make the district court's holding or seven circuit precedent go away by simply ignoring  district court held that employees employers like united trailer do not violate the family and medical leave act find we're seeing their usual call off and no call no show policies and that pull is well established under seven circuit precedent seven circuit precedent teaches us that even if an employee is covered by the family medical leave act he may not keep his employer in the dark regarding when the duration of that leave decisions like lewis gillum brown ricky all side in our brief establish that point of view so it's clear that the call of a call up process may be enforced without violating the family medical leave act even if the employee is covered by the f mol the undisputed facts established here that the company had no call no show policy that essentially stated if an employee is absent without calling in for three days he's effectively resigned his position the company also had a off process that the employee was required to call off fifteen minutes before each shift now mr or mr phillips was absent from july th through the july rd two thousand and fifteen he was absent nearly three weeks thirteen work days and he only called off five times these facts are undisputed he did not call off at all the last week he was absent such a lie th through the rd four days he never called off those policies were trigger justifying his terminations and the district court held that enforcing those policies did not violate the family medical leave act now mr phillips states ignores that folding and its opening brief and essentially ignore at oral arguments today didn't address it didn't distinguish any of those decisions at the summary judgment stage effectively waving in the argument to the contrary this issue is dispositive and should result in the the court affirming the district court's summary judgment we're now opposing counsel raises an argument about the alleged noncompliance with the f molay notice requirements the employer's notice requirements this argument does not address the holding of the district court which essentially was that the no call no enforcing the no call no show policy and the call of policy does not violate the family medical leave act so it's really a new claim it's a claim that that somehow the help i think it will help my understanding this it's not not related to the facts of this case and also just set the facts entirely aside and then we can come back to him ok ok so it seems in looking at the twenty five th which in bodies the employer's responsibility that an employer at some point you know comes under an obligation to provide information about him that bought f m l a leave which is plain from the from the face of it that's abundantly clear the question i have is when does that obligation kick in so that is the more formal certification process and i would argue that that regulation does not apply in this situation because what we have here is notify the employee as provided in three hundred d ok so it seems in fairness to your adversary's position it does seem that it's somewhat fact and circumstance dependent and what i mean by that is a telephone call this has i sprained my ankle playing basketball could see an employer same lie alrighty maybe maybe he's going to be back you know on friday morning that's a lot different and you know i fell off a ladder cleaning out my gutters and cracked two vertebrae in that situation it seems like h r might pretty quickly get the f emily leave letter together so what i'm trying to understand as a legal matter is when does the would kick in the certification process this the there's an informal obligation to investigate unclear requests for whether or not something is unclear that implicates the family medical you're standing on three hundred and three c because you're saying an employer can have this kind of call if you got a call the call in center right that's a legitimate policy see regie see the regulations etc etc that's your argument right but that but the case implicates the intersection does it not of three o three c n three hundred and one a how do they work together when there's a clear implication of the family medical leave act and in this situation there was not a clear implication in the  medically that the ricky decision is an example of that where the notice provided and they didn't get the guy the calls in and says i fell off a ladder is that enough is that i cracked two vertebrae i fell off a ladder i'm in bad shape i'm not medically that would let me know they are going to know a judge judge howard you have to say this i don't know what the statute if the guy says i don't know what the statutes called but i think there are some law out there somewhere that deals with leave i just fell off my ladder i ain't going anywhere for a while back in the hospital right and if you then then that would be a clear implication of the family medical leave act ok so h r would get the letter out the door that would that would if there is if there is if there is information that was not hartley and three all want to say that there is a clear implication of family medically that he didn't say it he didn't reference the family medical leave act but his injuries gives right doesn't know about it right as injuries give rise to indicate that the family it well i fell and i'm hurt as is probably not enough because it doesn't clearly implicate that the person has a serious health condition which would trigger the family medical leave act i should i follow from that or i broke my ribs move that would be closer to the line that would be closer to the line where where you have to go through the certification process or some informal means of gathering additional information but they think the reason we're  that the employer needs to know whether or not it is in fact a serious health condition and secondly how long is the what is the duration of the leave what if whether the not that st so in this situation the employer never knew what the duration of the leave was  i think the reason i'm asking the question may perhaps judge power too is the issue is is is mr almost kind of framing it up in substances is this closer to the sprain basketball sprained ankle and you know or the guy falling off the ladder and the very fact that we're having a hard time sorting it out i think his point is that's precisely why you need a trial and this point goes to whether or not mr whether or not mr phillips was entitle to family medical yeah his i think his argument i mean he can correct me if i'm wrong i can't it's not you know i can't state it for him but i understood his brief to be saying this guy did enough to trigger the employers three  not he would be entitled to family medical leave act is one issue the district court agreed with mr omer and said he did nothing to trigger the family medical leave act and title meant but he still loses because the employer has a right to know how long the le begun they have a call a process for that very purpose they're expected to call in every day to an indicate when will they return to work and mr phillips didn't do that he didn't even do it after he received dr that the doctor's notice indicating that he was going have the h r department saying hey look he's going to screw up wait three consecutive days when he fails to call in and firearm in that situation the regulation that you're relying upon three hundred and three c could operate to defeat three hundred and one and that's what concerns me i know we're not dealing with that fact pattern here right but it just can't be i don't think that an employer could gain an employee wait for a foot fault can him and then say well you you can call the call center both under three of the regulation three hundred and two thousand three hundred and three the obligation notice up and then firearm even in a situation where an employee has received a service cation letter i mean under these decisions lewis rigby they've assumed that the f mily applied that those absences were covered an employer this will be very brief and i really was listening to the questions that this court had of the episode lee i had those same concerns myself because once that employee does make that phone call and not calling in to say that my stomach ache in the day not calling and say i have a headache i would agree that that policy that they need to call in every day is sufficient and if they violate it they are right same time they also can provide them the certification of medical circulation they can pick back to their doctor get more information to give back to the employee that is one of the things that is the safeguard for both the act of the employee