HR specialist loses FMLA battle with Ascension – could your policies survive
A federal appeals court has backed Ascension after it fired an HR specialist following the end of her FMLA leave and a missed return-to-work date.
On March 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Ascension Health Alliance in a dispute with former human resources specialist Elizabeth Chitwood. The court’s opinion centers on how Ascension applied its FMLA leave and notice rules, and how it handled Chitwood’s failure to return to work when her approved leave ended.
According to the opinion, Chitwood worked as a human resources specialist for Ascension and, in July 2021, was approved for intermittent FMLA leave for migraines. That approval required her to report each intermittent FMLA absence to the third‑party administrator, Sedgwick, on the same day the absence occurred and to notify her supervisor as soon as practicable. The record showed she used this intermittent leave at least eight times during the summer of 2021.
In late August 2021, Chitwood stopped reporting to work entirely. She requested continuous military leave under the FMLA from August through December 2021 based on her ex‑husband’s military orders. Sedgwick denied that request as not authorized by the FMLA, but she did not return to work after the denial.
In October 2021, she applied for continuous FMLA leave to care for her son, who had a serious health condition. Sedgwick approved that request retroactively, covering the period from August 31 through November 3, 2021. When that continuous leave period ended, she still did not return to work.
The opinion explains that Ascension employee Scott Godsey contacted Chitwood about the conclusion of her leave and instructed her, at least three times, to return to work on November 15, 2021. He also told her that if she did not return as instructed, Ascension would fire her. Chitwood applied for a personal leave of absence for November 4 through December 1, 2021, but that request was denied.
On the morning of November 15, instead of working, Chitwood called Ascension’s attendance absentee line. She stated she had been unable to log into her computer and assumed she had been terminated, said it was a pleasure to work with the company, thanked Ascension for the opportunity, and mentioned returning company property. She did not state that she was taking FMLA leave that day.
Later on November 15, Ascension terminated her employment, recording the reason as “Leave Exhaust/Failure to Return to Work.” On November 16, the day after she was terminated, Chitwood tried to report intermittent FMLA leave to Sedgwick for her absences on November 11, 12 and 15. Sedgwick notified Ascension of these requests, but Ascension considered them invalid because she had been terminated the previous day.
Chitwood sued, alleging Ascension interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated against her for using FMLA leave. The appeals court rejected both claims. On interference, it noted that by the time she attempted to report intermittent FMLA leave for those November dates, she was no longer employed by Ascension, so she was not denied FMLA benefits to which she was entitled. The court also pointed to the FMLA regulations requiring employees to provide notice as soon as practicable and generally in line with the employer’s usual requirements, and to Ascension’s policy requiring same‑day reporting of intermittent leave. The record did not indicate that she was unable to report her absences on the days they occurred.
On retaliation, the court focused on why Ascension acted when it did. Chitwood had used both intermittent and continuous FMLA leave earlier in 2021, but the court found the record showed it was her failure to return to work as directed on November 15, after her continuous leave expired, that led to her termination. The opinion reviewed internal emails among Ascension employees that discussed concerns about her attendance and possible FMLA misuse, but concluded these communications reflected, at most, an honest suspicion and did not establish that Ascension’s stated reason for termination was pretextual.
For HR leaders, the decision underscores how the court evaluated clear leave policies, the requirement to follow employer notice procedures, the timing of return‑to‑work directives and the documentation of the stated termination reason in assessing FMLA interference and retaliation claims.
