Labor & Employment Developments Blog

Most employers understand that employees who take or formally request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are protected from retaliation. In a decision issued on May 14, 2026, the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) clarified that those protections may begin even earlier. In Paris v. MacAllister Machinery Co., the Court held that an employee’s request for FMLA paperwork may constitute protected activity – even if the employee never completes or returns the paperwork.

The case arose after Daniel Paris contacted a Human Resources representative regarding “the process necessary to request FMLA leave” for a medical condition. Paris asked what forms he needed to complete and what information was required from his doctor. Human Resources provided the requested paperwork, but Paris never returned it or submitted a medical certification. MacAllister later terminated Paris based on unrelated disciplinary reasons.

Paris sued, alleging that MacAllister retaliated against him for seeking FMLA leave. The district court rejected his claim, concluding that his inquiry about the FMLA process did not constitute protected activity because he had not formally requested leave or provided sufficient notice that he intended to take leave. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with that portion of the analysis. The Court explained that the FMLA prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for exercising or attempting to exercise FMLA rights. To give effect to that protection, the statute must protect an employee’s “first step” toward seeking leave. Under the Circumstances, Paris took that first step when he requested the paperwork necessary to begin the FMLA process. The Court emphasized that employees could be discouraged from asking about their FMLA rights if employers were permitted to take adverse action before a formal request was completed. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit held that Paris’s request for FMLA paperwork constituted protected activity and that he established a prima facie case of retaliation.

MacAllister nevertheless prevailed. The company presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Paris’s termination, including documented disciplinary issues, and Paris could not demonstrate that those reasons were pretextual. The Sixth Circuit therefore affirmed summary judgment in MacAllister’s favor.

What This Means for Employers

The decision has several important implications for employers administering FMLA leave:

• Initial Inquiries May Be Protected: An employee does not necessarily need to submit a formal leave request, medical certification, or completed paperwork before FMLA retaliation protections apply. A request for FMLA information or forms may be sufficient.
• Documentation Remains Critical: MacAllister ultimately prevailed because it substantiated the legitimate reasons for Paris’s termination. Employers should consistently document performance and disciplinary issues, particularly when an employee has recently raised a potential need for protected leave.
• Managers and Human Resources Should Be Trained: Managers and Human Resources personnel should understand that an employee’s initial inquiry about FMLA leave may be legally protected and should promptly direct such inquiries through the appropriate leave-management process.
• Timing Should Be Carefully Evaluated: Adverse action taken shortly after an FMLA inquiry may support an inference of retaliation. Before proceeding, employers should confirm that the decision is supported by well-documented reasons unrelated to the employee’s inquiry.

The KMK Law Labor & Employment team will continue to monitor developments in this area and is available to assist employers with FMLA compliance, leave-management practices, and retaliation claims.