FMLA riddle: When is an FMLA violation not a violation?

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) continues to baffle lawyers and HR professionals. But sometimes a riddle brings welcome news, as we see in a recent decision from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal court of appeals covering Texas). Read on.

Where’s the beef?

Virginia Adams worked for Columbia/HCA Hospital. She suffered from mast cell disorder, allergies, and asthma, which caused her to come late to work. She applied for and was granted FMLA leave. But she was told, in writing, “FMLA [was] not to be applied to tardy occurrences.” Of course, this is exactly why she requested intermittent FMLA leave.

Adams sued, alleging that this statement interfered with her right to take FMLA leave. And she was right. But that is only half of the formula. She also needed to prove that she suffered some damages from this interference. She did not.

According to the court, Adams didn’t show that she suffered any lost wages. Moreover, she offered no evidence that she actually did not take FMLA leave as a result of the statement. In short: No harm means no foul. The lawsuit was dismissed. Adams v. Columbia/HCA of New Orleans, (5th Cir., July 15, 2025).

Bottom line