Worker never filed for leave, never saw a doctor – the court still sided with him on one key point
Ask for the FMLA form, get fired – and your employer could be on the hook. That is the warning from a new federal appeals ruling.
On May 14, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that simply asking HR for the paperwork to request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act counts as protected activity. The employee does not have to actually qualify for leave, submit a doctor's certification, or even fill out the form. The ask itself is enough.
Daniel Paris worked as a field technician for MacAllister Machinery, a CAT equipment distributor doing business as Michigan CAT. He came to the case with a long disciplinary file, including attendance warnings, performance plans, and a last chance agreement he signed on October 31, 2018, under which any further violation meant termination.
In December 2018, after a tense incident with a supervisor over steel-toed boots, Paris emailed HR to report that he was experiencing an anxiety attack and needed time off. An HR employee pointed him to FMLA leave and to a colleague, Irina Itskovich. On December 21, 2018, Paris emailed Itskovich asking about the process for requesting FMLA leave and what forms he and his doctor would need to complete.
Itskovich sent him the FMLA request form the same day. Paris never filled it out. He never returned it. He never saw a mental health professional. He never submitted anything from a healthcare provider.
In early January 2019, MacAllister fired him, citing his failure to uphold the commitments in his last chance agreement.
Paris sued under the FMLA, the Labor Management Relations Act, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The trial court dismissed most of his claims and granted summary judgment to MacAllister on the FMLA counts. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but rewrote a key piece of the rulebook on the way to that result.
On the interference claim, the court held that Paris never established a serious health condition, a statutory term that requires either inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. He had neither.
On retaliation, the panel split with the lower court. The district judge had ruled that asking for information about FMLA leave was not protected activity. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, warning that such an approach would create a loophole letting employers fire workers the moment they tried to understand their rights.
Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, writing for the court, said an ask-at-your-peril rule could deter employees – including eligible ones uncertain of their rights – from taking the first step needed to exercise them.
Extending the court's 2023 decision in Milman v. Fieger & Fieger, the panel held that an initial step, such as a request for the paperwork needed to request FMLA leave, may itself qualify as protected activity. Paris took that step. That was enough.
Paris also cleared the rest of the test for a prima facie retaliation case, including a causal link drawn from the roughly two-week gap between his FMLA inquiry in late December and his firing in early January.
His case still failed – on pretext.
MacAllister put years of documented discipline on the record, plus the signed last chance agreement and a list of post-LCA infractions including incorrect troubleshooting procedures, failure to wear required protective equipment, overcharging customers, and parking an unapproved personal vehicle in the company yard. A group of employees reviewed all of the instances before deciding on termination. The court found that a single violation after the LCA would have justified firing on its own. Paris offered nothing beyond the timing of events, and the court held that temporal proximity by itself cannot support a finding of pretext.
For HR, the holding lands two messages at once.
The first is procedural. The moment an employee asks about FMLA leave or asks for the paperwork, retaliation protection clicks on. Managers and frontline HR staff need to treat that inquiry as a triggering event, not a casual hallway chat. Any discipline decision in the weeks that follow becomes a litigation risk.
The second is evidentiary. Documentation still wins cases. MacAllister did not survive this lawsuit on luck. It survived on a paper trail – years of warnings, a signed last chance agreement, and a clear post-LCA infraction list reviewed by more than one person before the termination decision.
The court also affirmed dismissal of Paris's claims against the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324, finding he failed to plausibly allege the union breached its duty of fair representation.
The decision is final at the appellate level.
