FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 72 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cv -6 07 73 -FAM KATHRYN PEREDA, anin di vi du al , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff - App el lant , vers us BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Del aware co rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 10 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d R ESTANI, Ju dg e. *

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, J udg e, United States Court of I nternational Trade , sitti ngby * designation.FAY, Cir cu itJu dg e:

App el la ntKath ryn P ered a (“ Pere da ”) ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l of he r two -co un t co m

pl ai ntall eg in g i nt erfe ren ce an d re ta li at io n u nd er the Fam il y an d M ed ic al Leav e Actof 1 99 3 (“ FMLA”) , 29 U.S.C. § 2 60 1, etseq ., aga in st App el le e Bro ok da le Sen io r Liv in g C omm un it ie s (“ Bro ok da le ”). The di st ric t co urt he ldth atbe cau se Pere dawas n otaneli gi bl e em pl oyee at t he ti m e sh e was te rm in at ed , sh e co ul d n otbri ng eit he r cl ai m un de r th e FMLA. Thi s ap pe al pre se nt s anis su e o f fi rs t i m

pr es si on forth is Cir cu it : wh ethe r th e FMLA p ro te ct s a p reel ig ib il it y reque stforpo st -el ig ib il it y lea ve . W e an swe r th atqu es ti on in th e affi rm at iv e, an d t he refo re re ve rs e. I. Bro ok da le op erat es sen io r li vi ng faci li ti es . Pered a b eg anhe r em pl oym en t at th e fac il it y

lo cat edat Th e Pre se rv e atPal m -Air e in Po m pa no Beac h, Fl or id a o n Octo be r 5, 2 00 8. Sh e was term in at ed11 m on th s l at er, i n S ep te m be r of 20 09 . In Ju ne of 2 00 9, Br oo kd al e was advi se d t ha t Pe red a was pre gn an t an d wo ul d b e reque st in g F MLA le av e aft er the bi rth of h er ch il d o n o r ab ou t No ve m be r 30 , 20 09 . Pered a al le ge s tha t, p rio r to Bro ok da le lea rn in g abo uthe r pr eg nanc y , sh e was a to p e m

pl oyee. Afterlearn in g abo uthe r pr eg na nc y , Pered a al le ge s t ha t

2Bro ok da le be ga n h aras si ng he r, cau si ng st res s an d o th er co m pl ic at io ns in he r pr eg na nc y . In a dd it io n, Pe red a al le ge s t ha t Br oo kd al e’s m an ag em en t b eg an de ni gr at in g h er job pe rfo rm an ce an d p la cedhe r on a pe rfo rm an ce i m pr ov em en t pl anwith u na tt ai nabl e g oa ls
. At the ti m e o f th es e co m

pl ic at io ns , Pered a was eli gi bl e fo r acc ru edsi ckan d pe rs on al lea ve . Pered a al le ge s t ha t s he was t ol d b y m an ag em en t t ha t s he co ul d
m ak e d oc to rs vi si ts . Yet, aft er p la ci ng Pere daon th e p erfo rm an ce i m pr ov em en t pl an , m an ag em en t b eg anwrit in g h er up fo r taki ng lea ve to vi si t t he do ct or . Pered a al le ge s t ha t o th er em

pl oyees wer e n otwrit te n up fo r ta ki ng th e sa m e. InAug us t o f 20 09 , Pered a to oka few d ay s o ff, n ot ifyin g B ro ok da le vi a e-m ai l. Whensh e returne d t o wo rk , sh e was ag ai n wri tt enup by m an ag em en t fo r no t g et ti ng ve rb al
au th or iz at io n fo r he r ab se nc e. Late r th atsame mon th , Pered a co nt in ue d t o s uf fer m or e p reg na nc y -rel at ed
m ed ic al is su es . Pered a al le ge s t ha t m an ag em en t t ol d h er s he was e li gi bl e fo r no nFMLA l eav e, in cl ud in g the us e o f si ck , per so na l, an d v acat io n d ay s. In earl y Sep te m be r, sh e ag ai n t oo k t im e o ff aft er h er p hysic ia n i ns tru ct edth atsh e n eed ed be d re st . She lef

t a m es sa ge with t he Exec ut iv e Dir ect or , bu t n ev er h eardba ck
. Sev eral da y s af

te r sh e was fin al ly abl e to reac h s om eo ne at B ro ok da le , sh e was
3fir ed
. On M ay 11 , 20 10 , Pered a fi le d h er Co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Br oo kd al e al le gi ng cl ai m s fo r in te rfer en ce (C ou ntI) an d re ta li at io n (C ou ntII) u nd er the FMLA. Her Co m pl ai ntass ert edth at“ Bro ok da le [in te rfer edwith h er] FMLA rig ht s, i ns of ar as Bro ok da le de ni edPere dabe ne fit s u nd er the FMLA to whi ch sh e was en ti tl ed , and te rm in at edhe r fo r atte m

pt in g t o e xe rci se th os e ri gh ts .” Bro ok da le m ov edto di sm is s fo r fai lure t o s ta te a cl ai m un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) of

th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. On Se pt em be r 22 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d P ered a’s

1 Co m pl ai nt . In i ts ord er o f di sm is sa l, the di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t Br oo kd al e co ul d
no t h av e in te rfer edwith P ered a’s FMLA ri gh ts , bec au se sh e was no t en ti tl edto FMLA l eav e atth e ti m e th atsh e reque st edit . Mor eo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt al so he ldth atsi nc e Per ed a was no t el ig ib le for FMLA le av e, sh e co ul d n otha ve en ga ge d i n p ro te ct edact iv it y an d s o B ro ok da le co ul d n otha ve ret al ia te d a ga in st he r. Pered a n ow ap pe al s. II. W e rev ie w a di sm is sa l o f a co m pl ai ntun de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ) de Pereda filed the instant ca se on May 11, 2010. On J une 2, 2010, B rookdale filed a Motion to 1 Dismiss. P ere da fa iled to file its Response in Opposition and the district court dismissed the case on J une 24, 2010. On that same day , Pereda filed a Motion for Re lief fr om the district court’s Orde r of Dismissal based on e x cusableneg lect, which the district court grante d on September 13, 2010. A fe w day s later, on Septembe r 22, 2010, the district cour t issued its Order on the me rits, and grante d Br ookdale’ s Motion to Dis miss on the merits. 4no vo . Spe ak er v . U.S. Dep’t. of Heal th &Hu m anServ s. Ce nt ers for Dis eas e Co nt ro l & Prev en ti on , 62 3 F .3d13 71 , 13 79 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e “ acce pt [ ] th e factua l al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d c on st ru e[ ] the m in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p la in ti ff.” Id
. III. Befo re the Co urt i s t he qu es ti onlef t o pe n b y W al ke r v. El m or e Co un ty, Bo ardof Educ at io n, 3 79 F.3d12 49 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ): “ whe th er the FMLA pr ot ect s a p re-e li gi bi li ty requ es t fo r po st -el ig ib il it y m at ern it y

lea ve .” W e res ol ve

2 th atqu es ti on in th e aff

irmativ e. Und er s ect io n 2 61 5( a) o f th e FMLA, an em pl oyee m ay

bri ng two types of cl ai m s: in te rfer en ce cl ai m s, i n wh ic h a n e m pl oyee as se rts th athi s emplo y er d en ie d
orot he rwis e in te rfer edwith h is subs ta nt iv e ri gh ts un de r th e Act ; an d re ta li at io n cl ai m s, i n wh ic h a n e m

pl oyee as se rts th athi s emplo y er d is cri m in at edag ai ns t h im be cau se he en ga ge d i n a n a ct iv it y pro te ct edby the Act. St ric kl an d v . W at er Work s & Sewe r Bd . of B irming ha m , 23 9 F .3d11 99 , 12 06 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)
. In Walker, the Court held that the F MLA did not protect a n attempt to exercise the right to 2 beg in FMLA-lea

ve bef ore one is eligible. I d. There , Walker, a third- grade teac her, a nnounced she was pre gnant and would be needingleave beg inning on he r due date of Aug ust 2. I d. at. 1250. Be cause Walker nee ded lea ve to commenc e seve ral da y s befor e she w as elig ible under the FMLA, the Court held that she w as not protec ted by the Act. The Walker Court rese rved f or another day the fa ctual sce nario be fore us today : whether the FMLA protec ts a pre- elig ibilit y reque st for post-elig ibilit y maternity

leave
. 5Inord er t o re cei ve FMLA p ro te ct io ns , on e m us t b e b ot h e li gi bl e, m ean in g ha vi ng work edth e requi si te ho ur s, an d e nt it le d t o l eav e, m ean in g a n e m pl oyee 3 ha s ex pe rie nc eda tr ig ge rin g e ve nt , su ch as t he bi rth of ach il d. Se e 2 9 U.S.C. 26 12 (a)( 1) (st at in g t ha t o nl y aneli gi bl e em

pl oyee sh al l b e en ti tl edto FMLA le av e). “ The de te rm in at io n o f whe th er an em pl oyee ha s wo rk edforth e em pl oyer fo r atlea st1,2 50 ho ur s i n t he pa st12 m on th s an d h as be enem pl oyed b y th e em pl oyer fora to ta l o f atlea st12 m on th s m us t b e m ad e as of t he da te th e FMLA le av e is to st art .” 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.1 10 (d ). 4 Here, i t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t Pe red a, atth e ti m e sh e reque st edlea ve , was n ot el ig ib le forFMLA p ro te ct io n b ecau se sh e h adno t wo rk edth e requi si te ho ur s an d ha d n oty etex pe rie nc eda tr ig ge rin g e ve nt , th e b irt h o f he r ch il d. Itis als o un di sp ut edth atsh e wou ldha ve be enen ti tl edto FMLA p ro te ct io n b y th e ti m e sh e ga ve bi rth an d b eg anhe r reque st edlea ve . 5 Under the FMLA, an e ligible e mploy ee is one who has wor ked for at least 12 months, and for 3 at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12-month period. 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2). Br ookdale a

rgues 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(d) is inapplicable to this case beca use the re gulation 4 was e nacte d to addre ss whether a employee out on non- FMLA leave could be tra nsfer red to FMLA leave once the employee be came elig ible. Br ookdale r elies on B rung art v. B ellSouth Telec omm. Inc., 231 F .3d 791, 795–97 (11th Cir. 2000) to argue that Pere da’s inter pretation of the re gulation would improperly expand the rea ch of the FMLA to cover ineligible e mploy ees. We find Br

ung art, whic h held an e mploy er’ s failure to provide suffic ient notice of ine ligibility did not transform an ine ligible e mploy ee to a n elig ible employee, ina

pplicable to the issues of this case. More over, our

holding doe s not ex pand F MLA elig ibilit y to an otherw ise inelig ible employee. Pereda was fir st employ ed by

Br ookdale on Oc tober 5, 2008 a nd terminated on Septe mber 5, 5 2009. Had she not been ter minated, Pere da would have been e ligible a nd entitled to beg in FMLA-lea

ve as of her duedate on Nove mber 30, 2009. B y November

30, 2009 she would have 6The di stric t co urt d en ie d P ered a’s in te rfer en ce cl ai m be cau se sh e h adno t yet ex pe rie nc eda tr ig ge rin g e ve ntwhen sh e reque st edhe r le av e an d, t hu s, “ sh e was no t en ti tl edto FMLA le av e su chth atDefen da ntco ul d h av e in te rfer edwith h er rig ht .” Dis t. Ct . Orde r at4. Th e d is tri ctco urt al so de ni edPere da ’s ret al ia ti on cl ai m , fin di ng th atPere da ’s reque stforlea ve was n ota st atut or il y pro te ct ed act iv ity . The d is tri ctco urt re as on edth atth e FMLA d idno t g ran t em pl oyees t he rig htto reque stlea ve be fo re b eco m in g e li gi bl e an d, b ecau se Pere dawas n ot el ig ib le forFMLA le av e whe n s he m ad e h er re qu es t, h er re qu es t was no t an at te m ptto ex erci se a pr ot ect edrig ht
. 6 Pere daarg ue s t ha t i f th e d is tri ctco urt d eci si on is all owe d t o s ta nd , em pl oyees wi ll fearm en ti on in g l eav e in an ti ci pa ti on of t he bi rth of ach il d. Mo reo ve r, em

pl oyees wo ul d c eas e to pro vi de th ei r em pl oyers wi th ad equa te no ti ce of anim pe di ng ab se nc e in fearof r et al ia ti on . Bro ok da le co un te rs th atPere dawas been e mployed 14 months, well within the 12-month/1,250-hour Depa rtment of L abor ( “DOL ”) require ment. In support of its conclusion that an e mploy ee who is not eligible at the time of her r equest doe s 6 not eng ag e in protec ted ac tivity , the district court c ited sever al district court opinions. See Dist. Ct. Order at 6. We conclude these case s are inapplicable be cause none of the case s cited involved an employee who would have be en elig ible at the time his or her leave was to commence . See Hills v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 08- 23197-CIV, 2010 WL1839268, at *7–8 (S.D. Fla . May

6, 2010) (dismissing re taliation claim when plaintiff w as not an e ligible e mploy ee at the time of the r equest or when lea ve commenc ed); Penna

nt v. Convergy s Corp., 368 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1310 (S.D. Fla . 2005) (c alculatingelig ibilit y as of the da

y leave commence d per 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(d)) ; Morehar dt v. Sprint Airlines, Inc., 174 F . Supp. 2d 1272, (M.D. Fla. 2001) (dismissing re taliation claim when e mploy ee ha d not worked the require d number of hour s by the day of her reque st, which was a lso the day FMLA leave was to commenc e). B eca use none of

the case s involved a pre -elig ibilit y reque st for post-elig ibilit y leave , they

are not applicable he re. 7no t an FMLA el ig ib le em pl oyee at a ny po in t dur in g h er em pl oym en t b ecau se sh e was term in at edwell be fo re the 12 -m on th /1 ,25 0 h ou r requi rem en t. Be cau se sh e was no t an eli gi bl e em

pl oyee, sh e was no t en ti tl edto any pro te ct io n p ur su an t t o th e FMLA an d b ot h h er cl ai m s wer e p ro pe rly dis m is se d. Mo reo ve r, Bro ok da le arg ue s t ha t Pe red a’s an ti ci pa te d e li gi bi li ty w as no t s uf fic ie ntto m ak e h er an el ig ib le em

pl oyee un de r th e FMLA i n J un e 2 00 9, wh enBro ok da le lea rn edof h er pr eg na nc y . Afte r ex am in in g t he va rio us ele m en ts of t he FMLA reg ul at ory sch em e, su ch
as th e 3 0- da y

no ti ce re qu ire m en t an d t he DOL im pl em en ti ng reg ul at io ns , we co nc lu de th atall owi ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng to st an d wo ul d v io la te th e pu rp os es forwhi chth e FMLA was en act ed . W it ho utpro te ct in g a ga in stpre el ig ib il it y in te rfer en ce, a l oo ph ol e is crea te d wh ereb y anem pl oyer ha s t ot al free do m to term in at e anem

pl oyee be fo re s he canev er b eco m e el ig ib le . Suc h a si tu at io n i s co nt rary to t he ba si c co nc ep t o f th e FMLA. Thu s, thi s C ou rt d is ag rees wit h t he di stric t co urt an d fi nd s tha t Pe red a st at edsu ffi ci en t fa ct s t o e st ab li sh pr im a fac ie cla im s fo r bo th FMLA in te rfer en ce an d re ta li at io n. We addres s ea ch cl ai m in tu rn .

8A. FMLA Int erfe renc e 7

The FMLA m ak es itil le ga l “ fo r anem pl oyer to in te rfer e wit h, re st rai n, o r de ny the ex erci se of o r th e atte m ptto ex erci se , any rig htpro vi de d u nd er thi s subc hapt er.” 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 15 (a)( 1) . “ A Pla in ti ff cl ai m in g i nt erfe ren ce m us t de m on st rat e b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t s he was d en ie d abe ne fitto whi chsh e was en ti tl ed .” Harl ey v. Heal th Ctr . of C oc on utCree k, 4 87 F. Sup p. 2 d 13 44 , 13 57 (S.D. Fla . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . In Har le y , Ju dg e Gol d e xp la in ed th at“un le ss un ique cir cu m st an ces ex is t, a p reg na ntem pl oyee is on ly ent it le d t o pr ot ect io n a ga in stin te rfer en ce wi th he r FMLA ri gh ts on ce s he de li ve rs he r baby
an d t he cir cum st an ces of h er n eed in g l eav e ari se s.” 4 87 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 1 35 8. Th e di st ric t co urt i n t hi s ca se , fol lo win g Har le y , hel d t ha t b ecau se Pere daha d n oty et de li ve redhe r ch il d, s he was n oten ti tl edto lea ve at t he ti m e o f he r reque st , and , th us , Pered a co ul d n otpro ve sh e was de ni eda be ne fitto whi ch sh e was en ti tl ed
. W e d is ag ree wi th su ch a narro w in te rp ret at io n o f th e st atut e. W e h ol d t ha t b ecau se th e FMLA re qu ire s n ot ic e in adva nc e o f fu tu re l eav e, em pl oyees a re p ro te ct edfro m in te rfer en ce p rio r to th e o ccu rren ce o f a trig ge rin g ev en t, s uc h a s t he bi rth of ach il d. Th e FMLA m an da te s t ha t, “ Inany cas e in whi ch

There exis ts a dea

rth of opinions from circ uit courts on the pre cise issue we are dealingwith 7 here . Consequently , we a re se tting for

th excerpts from some district cour t opinions that, although not prec edential, a

re illuminating a

nd persua sive.

9th e n eces si ty for l eav e . . . is fo res eeab le ba se d o n a n e xp ect edbi rth or p la cem en t,

th e em pl oyee sh al l p ro vi de th e em pl oyer with n otles s t ha n 3 0 d ay s’ no ti ce, b efo re th e d at e th e le av e is to be gi n, o f th e em pl oyee’s in te nt io n t o t ak e le av e . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 2( e)(1 ). The n ot ic e p eri odwas m ean t as pro te ct io n fo r em pl oyers t o pr ov id e th em

with s uf fic ie ntno ti ce o f ex te nd edab se nc es . “ It wo ul d b e il lo gi cal to in te rp retth e n ot ic e requi rem en t i n away th atrequi res em

pl oyees t o d is cl os e reque st s fo r le av e whi chwou ld , inturn , exp os e th em to ret al ia ti on , or i nt erfe ren ce, fo r whi ch th ey

have no rem edy .” Reyno ld s v . Int er-I ndus . Con f. On Au to Co ll is io n Rep ai r, 59 4 F . Sup p. 2 d 9 25 ,92 8 (N.D. Il l. 2 00 9)
. W it ho utrem edy , th e ad va nc edno ti ce re qu ire m en t b eco m es a tr ap for ne wer em pl oyees a ndex te nd s t o e m pl oyers a s ig ni fic an t ex em pt io n fr om

li ab il it y . Beffe rt v. Pa . Dep’t. Of Pub. Welfa re, No . Civ . A. 05 -4 3, 2 00 5 WL 90 63 62 , at * 3 (E.D. Pa., Apr il 18 , 20 05 ). Su chanin te rp ret at io n i s i nc on si st en t wi th FMLA an d t he pu rp os e o f th e Act . If we were t o h ol d t ha t Pe red a h adno cau se of a ct io n fo r in te rfer en ce b ecau se sh e h adno t yet be enem pl oyed the ful l 1 ,25 0 h ou rs du rin g a 12 -m on th pe rio d, o r gi ve n b irt h t o h er ch il d, t ha n s he sh ou ldno t b e requi redto gi ve he r em

pl oyer an y

adva nc e n ot ic e o f im

pe nd in g l eav e. As the st atut e requi res adva nc e n ot ic e, lo gi c m an da te s tha t FM LA be re adto all ow a c au se of a ct io n fo r em pl oyees wh o, l ik e Per ed a, in go od wil l ex ceedth e n ot ic e requi rem en t.
10Insupp ort o f it s p os it io n, Br oo kd al e arg ue s t ha t, p ur su an t t o DOL’s

im pl em en ti ng reg ul at io n 2 9 C .F.R. § 8 25 .11 2, em pl oyees a re el ig ib le forFMLA le av e o nl y

up on th e d el iv ery of

a ch il d. El ig ib il it y

is bu t o ne asp ectof t he reg ul at io n. No ti ce o f a fu ture trig ge r ev en t i s an othe r. It i s ax io m at ic th atth e de li ve ry of ach il d i s n eces sa ry

in ord er fo r FMLA l eav e to actua ll y co m m en ce, bu t t ha t re qu ire m en t d oe s n otop enth e d oo r fo r pr e-el ig ib le in te rfer en ce wi th FMLA ri gh ts with i m

pu ni ty. Fu rth erm or e, th atreg ul at io n c an no t b e rea d i n is ol at io n. Tak ento ge th er wi th ot he r reg ul at io ns ad dr es si ng lea ve , itis cle ar tha t th e FMLA s ch em e in te nd s t ha t a d et erm in at io n a s t o F MLA el ig ib il ity be m ad e “ as of th e d at e th e FMLA l eav e is to st art .” 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.1 10 (d ). “ Mo reo ve r, th e

“ refe ren ce t o ‘em

pl oyee’ rathe r th an‘ el ig ib le em pl oyee’ . . . is a re co gn it io n t ha t so m e em pl oyees wi ll an d s ho ul d g iv e n ot ic e o f fu tu re l eav e b efo re the y ha ve be en on th e job fortwel ve m on th s.” B effe rt, 2 00 5 WL 90 63 62 , at * 3. No ti ce o f an in te ntto us e FMLA l eav e in th e fu tu re i s d is ti nc t b utde se rv in g o f si m il ar pr ot ect io n. Thu s, b ecau se th e st atut e co nt em pl at es no ti ce o f le av e in advanc e o f be co m in g e li gi bl e, i.e., g iv in g b irt h t o ach il d, t he FMLA reg ul at ory sch em e m

us t ne ces sa ril y

pro te ctpre -el ig ib le em

pl oyees s uc h a s Pe red a, who pu t the ir e m pl oyers on no ti ce o f a p os t-e li gi bi li ty leav e reque st . An ex pe ct an t m ot he r who is alo ng in
11he r pr eg na nc y can no t h id e th at , indu e ti m e, sh e wil l g iv e b irth t o ach il d. By the
ve ry na tu re o f th e fac t t ha t a f ul l-t erm pre gn an cy

tak es ni ne m on th s t o c om pl et e, no t af fo rd in g p re-e li gi bl e ex pe ct in g p aren ts an y pro te ct io n wo ul d l eav e th em ex po se d t o a dv ers e act io n b y th ei r em pl oyer. Alt ho ug h t he re ar e n o El ev en th Cir cu itde ci si on s o n p oi nt , th ere i s h el pf ul pr eced en t o n t he m ean in g o f “ em pl oyee” fo r FMLA p ur

po se s. Whil e o n co nc ed ed ly dis ti nc t fa ct s, h ere we m us t co ns tru e Per ed a as “ el ig ib le ” fo r pr ot ect io n i f we are to ho no r th e p ur po se forwhi ch FMLA was en act ed . In Sm it h v. Be ll So ut h Tel eco m

m un ic at io ns , Inc ., 27 3 F .3d13 03 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ), we he ldth ata fo rm er em

pl oyee who all eg edth athi s emplo y er re ta li at edag ai ns t h im in it s d eci si on no t t o re hi re h im is co ns id eredan“ em

pl oyee” wit hi n t he m ean in g of th e FMLA. We furt he r ex pl ai ne d t ha t a n arro w in te rp ret at io n wo ul d p erm itan em pl oyer to ev ad e th e FMLA b y bl ack li st in g a n e m

pl oyee th atth e em

pl oyer su sp ect s i s l ik el y

to tak e ad vant ag e o f th e Act . Id. at13 07 (ci ti ng Duckworth v. Prat t & Whi tn ey , Inc ., 15 2 F .3d1,1 1 (1 stCir . 19 98 )). Here, the in te rp ret at io n t ha t Bro ok da le urg es wou ldsi m il arl y fru st rat e th e p ur

po se of t he FMLA b y

pe rm it ti ng em pl oyers t o e li m in at e st aff t ha t t he em pl oyer pe rcei ve s wi ll ne edFMLA. Inth atsame vei n, Br oo kd al e arg ue s tha t t he term “ el ig ib le em

pl oyee” in th e FMLA ev in ces cle ar co ng res si on al in te ntto li m itth e ri gh t t o b rin g p riv at e act io ns . 12Thi s C ou rt d oe s n otdi sa gr ee en ti rel y . An em pl oyee ha s t o b e b ot h e li gi bl e an d
en ti tl edto FMLA le av e o n t he da y he r FMLA l eav e is to co m m en ce. As st at ed ab ov e, th es e requi rem en ts do no t o pe n t he do orforpre -el ig ib il it y in te rfer en ce wi th FMLA ri gh ts . Con tra ry

to Bro ok da le ’s con te nt io ns , th e Co urt’s h ol di ng to da y do es no t ex pandFMLA co ve rag e to a ne w cla ss of e m pl oyees. We are s im

pl y ho ld in g th ata pr e-el ig ib le em

pl oyee ha s a c au se of a ct io n i f anem pl oyer term in at es he r in
or de r to av oi d h av in g t o a cco m m od at e th atem

pl oyee with ri gh tfu l FM LA leav e rig ht s o nc e th atem

pl oyee be co m es eli gi bl e. B. FMLA Reta li at io n Turn in g t o P ered a’s cl ai m forFMLA ret al ia ti on , inord er t o s ta te a pr im a faci e cas e, Pere dam

us t s ho w th at : “ (1 ) sh e en ga ge d i n ast atut or il y pro te ct ed act iv ity ; (2 ) sh e su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t d eci si on ; an d (3 ) th e d eci si on was cas ua ll y

rel at edto a pr ot ect edact iv it y .” W al ke r, 37 9 F .3dat 1 25 2 (c it in g Stric kl an d, 2 39 F.3dat 1 20 7) . After c on cl ud in g t ha t Pe red a was no t el ig ib le for FMLA b en efi ts , th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d tha t s he th eref or e co ul d n otha ve en ga ge d in st atut or il y

pro te ct edact iv it y , eve n i f sh e wou ldha ve be co m e el ig ib le at s om e po in t i n t he futur e. Bec au se we ha ve co nc lu de d t ha t the FMLA p ro te ct s a p re-e li gi bi li ty requ es t fo r po st -el ig ib il it y

m at ern it y

lea ve , we ho ldth atPere daco ul d a ls o s ta te a cau se of

13act io n fo r FMLA ret al ia ti on . Here, we n eedon ly addres s the fir stpro ng of

FMLA’s ret al ia ti on an al y si s. Un de r th e al le ga ti on s o f th e Co m pl ai nt , Pered a was en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y

pro te ct edact iv it y

whensh e d is cu ss edwith h er em pl oyer th e FMLA l eav e sh e was de ni edaft er the bi rth of h er b ab y . W e h ol d t ha t a p re-e li gi bl e reque stfor po st -el ig ib le lea ve is pro te ct ed act iv ity be cau se th e FMLA ai m s t o s up po rt b ot h e m pl oyees i n t he pro ces s o f
ex erci si ng th ei r FMLA ri gh ts an d e m pl oyers i n p lann in g fo r th e ab se nc e o f
em pl oyees o n F MLA le av e. Pro te ct in g b ot h re fle ct s t ha t t he FMLA sh ou ldbe
ex ecu te d “ in a m an ne r th atacco m m od at es th e le gi ti m at e in te res t o f em pl oyers,” 2 9 U.S.C. 26 01 (b )(3 ), witho utab us in g t he in te res ts of e m pl oyees. Und er the FMLA anem

pl oyee ne edno t b e cu rren tl y ex erci si ng he r ri gh ts or cu rren tl y eli gi bl e fo r FMLA l eav e in ord er t o b e p ro te ct edfro m ret al ia ti on . The FMLA m ak es it“un la wfu l fo r an y em pl oyer to in te rfer e wit h, re st rai n o r de ny the
ex erci se of o r th e at te m

ptto ex erci se , any rig ht ” p ro vi de d u nd er the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 5( a)(1 ). The F MLA al so pro te ct s emplo y ees an d p ro sp ect iv e em pl oyees e ve n i f th e in di vi du al is no t cu rren tl y eli gi bl e o r en ti tl edto lea ve . See 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.2 20 (pr oh ib it in g e m pl oyers fr om

di sc riminat in g a ga in st em pl oyees o r pr os pe ct iv e em pl oyees wh o h av e p rev io us ly use d F MLA le av e); see al so Po tt s v . Fran kl inElec . Co., No . Civ . 05 -4 43 , 20 06 W L 24 74 96 4, at*1 (E.D.
14Okl a. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng anem pl oyee who gave no ti ce o f ex pe ct edFMLA le av e co ul d b rin g aret al ia ti on cla im ev enth ou gh a tr ig ge rin g e ve ntne ve r oc cu rred ). In Po tt s, the di stric t co urt re as on edth at“ [i]f co urts were t o re adth e FMLA t o a ll ow em pl oyers t o d is m is s i ne li gi bl e em pl oyees wh o g iv e adva nc e n ot ic e o f th ei r ne ed fo r FMLA l eav e, itwou ldop ena la rg e lo op ho le in th e la w andun de rm in e th e pl ai n l an gu ag e an d p ur

po se of t he no ti ce re qu ire m en t i n § 26 12 (e)( 1) .” 20 06 W L 24 74 96 4, at*3 . Sim il arl y , th e FMLA p ro te ct s Pe red a fro m ret al ia ti on , eve n th ou gh at t he ti m e o f he r reque stan d t erm in at io n, s he was n oty eteli gi bl e o r en ti tl edto FMLA le av e b ecau se sh e h adno t yet gi ve n b irt h. The que st io n 8
rem ai ns forth e d is tri ctco urt as to whet he r th ere i s co lo rab le ev id en ce tha t Bro ok da le di d i n fa ctret al ia te ag ai ns t p la in ti ff. Bro ok da le warn s o f a s li pp ery sl op e whe re, i f Pere da ’s arg um en t i s acce pt ed , an e m

pl oyee co ul d b e d eem edFMLA el ig ib le fro m th e fi rs t wee k o f
em pl oym en t. Ho wev er, as th e co urt m en ti on edin Reynol ds , “ The sce nario in Our holdingthat a pre -elig ibilit y reque st for post-elig ibilit y leave is a protec ted ac tivity is in 8 acc ord with other c ourts to consider the issue. See Skrjanc v. Gr eat L akes Powe r Serv. Co., 272 F.3d 309, 314 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (“The right to actually take [FMLA] leave . . . include s the right to decla re a n intention to take such leave in the future .”); B eff ert, 2005 WL

906362, at *3 (holding a pre gnant employee who provided notice of post-elig ible FMLA leave could bringa re taliation claim eve n though she was not elig ible at the time of he r re quest); Rey nolds, 594 F. Supp. 2d at 928 (findingan employer “ has no leg itimate interest in beingable to ter minate an e leventh month-employee f

or simply reque sting for esee able lea ve for which he is e ligible” espec ially when the sa

me dec ision would be prohibited a month later) ; Walker, 223 F. Supp. 2d at 1260 (findingit “absurd” to interpret the F MLA to allow a e mploy er to re taliate ag ainst an employee who g ives pre- elig ible notice of post-e ligible lea ve). 15whi chanem pl oyee work s ei gh t h ou rs an d t he n re qu es ts for es eeab le FMLA le av e be gi nn in g i n 3 64 da y s . . . is a no n- st art er.” 5 94 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 9 30 . That
em pl oyee, jus t as Pere da , st il l co ul d b e te rm in at edforleg it im at e rea so ns , su ch as po orpe rfo rm an ce o r di sh on es ty. Mo reo ve r, li ab il it y to th atem

pl oyee co ul d a ls o be de ni edforfai lu re t o m eetothe r requi rem en ts of t he FMLA. Our d eci si on to day si m pl y m ean s t ha t p re-e li gi bl e d is cu ss io n o f po st -el ig ib le FMLA le av e is pro te ct ed act iv ity un de r th e FMLA. Acco rd in gl y , bec au se Pere daen ga ge d i n p ro te ct ed act iv ity by dis cu ss in g h er m at ern it y pl an s wi th he r em

pl oyer, sh e h as all eg eda va li d c au se of a ct io n fo r ret al ia ti on un de r th e FMLA. IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t i s re ve rs edan d t he
cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith thi s o pi ni on . REVERSED AND REMANDED.

16