Opinion ID: 4686682
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foreseeable Leave

Text: Under the FMLA, a plaintiff must give 30 days’ notice for foreseeable leave, but if “30 days[’] notice is not practicable, such as because of a lack of knowledge of approximately when leave will be required to begin, a change in circumstances, or a medical emergency, notice must be given as soon as practicable.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(a) (2013). “As soon as practicable means as soon as both possible and practical, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances in the individual case.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(b). Koch’s absence was undoubtedly foreseeable. Koch testified that she ran out of medication and was incapacitated on Sunday, August 13. Because nothing in the record indicates that Koch knew of her impending absence thirty days in advance, we assess whether it was practical for Koch -5- No. 20-5367, Koch v. Thames Healthcare Group, LLC to notify Thames of absences on Monday, August 14. We find that it was. Koch could have notified Steffey on Monday morning when she texted Steffey about her 8:30 a.m. wrist-injury appointment. Koch argues that she provided sufficient notice during her one-minute phone call with Steffey on the morning of August 15 and again on the evening of August 16 when she texted Steffey that she was “afraid to leave [her] house [that] week” and that she “ran out of samples, and it hit [her] hard Sunday.” Even assuming, as we must, that Steffey received that phone call and text message, those contacts were insufficient to notify Thames of Koch’s FMLA leave and too late to avoid automatic termination under the attendance policy. Koch’s August 15 phone call merely conveyed that she would not be coming for the rest of the week without further explanation. The August 16 text message merely stated that Koch was out of medication, not that it affected her ADHD or MDD, or that she was requesting leave for the next day. Why was she afraid to leave her house, and what hit her hard? Without more, her text message could not reasonably put Thames on notice that Koch was suffering from a serious health condition or that she was requesting FMLA leave because of it. See Beaver v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, Inc., 144 F. App’x 452, 456–57 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that the plaintiff’s general description of her ailment and absence did not provide sufficient FMLA-leave notice). More importantly, both Koch’s phone call and text message were tardy. Koch’s August 15 phone call did not come until eight minutes before her shift started, long after the attendance policy’s two-hour-notice deadline. The same goes for the letter from Koch’s medical care provider, which did not come until August 17. Before that time, Koch had two no-call/no-shows and was subject to automatic termination under Thames’ attendance policy. -6- No. 20-5367, Koch v. Thames Healthcare Group, LLC