• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

HRMorning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
  • HR DEEP DIVES
  • PODCASTS
    • VOICES OF HR
    • WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP TODAY
  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • HR Technology
  • Payroll
  • Management
  • Women’s Leadership
  • More
    • Talent Management
    • Performance Management
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans
  • Employment Law

FMLA Leave: Court Says This Was Not a Valid Leave Request

Tom D'Agostino
By: Tom D'Agostino
  • Share on

About the Author

Tom D’Agostino is an attorney and legal editor who has more than 30 years of experience writing about employment law, disability law and education law trends. He earned his B.A. degree from Ramapo College of New Jersey and his J.D. from the Duquesne University School of Law. D’Agostino, who is a member of the Pennsylvania bar, is a past member of the American Bar Association’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities Committee. He has provided technical assistance in the production of segments for television’s ABC World News and 20/20, and he has been quoted in periodicals including USA Today. He is also a past contributing author of Legal Rights of Persons with Disabilities: An Analysis of Federal Law, which is a comprehensive two-volume treatise addressing the legal rights of people with disabilities. Tom is passionate about baseball and authentic Italian food. When not writing, he enjoys spending time with family.

Show Less
Last Updated: November 7, 2024
5 minute engagement

With respect to FMLA leave, sometimes a question comes up as to whether leave was properly requested.

That’s where the duck test can come in. 

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s a duck.

In Blake v. City of Montgomery, a firefighter-paramedic argued he didn’t resign. He said he asked for a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.

But the Eleventh Circuit found his “leave request” walked, quacked and looked like a resignation. So his FMLA claim couldn’t succeed.

Facing a 96-Hour Shift

It’s impossible not to have sympathy for this first responder.

Already burned out from working overtime due to staff shortages, he was told while wrapping up a 24-hour shift that he had to stay on to work a 24-hour overtime shift.

Those 48 hours on duty would have led, with no break, to the 48-hour overtime shift he was already scheduled for.

FMLA Leave: What He Actually Said

But here’s the thing. While staff needn’t say “FMLA” when requesting a leave under that law, courts have made it clear that employers aren’t expected to be psychic, either.

Would you understand the following to be a request for FMLA leave? He told his boss that he “couldn’t do it anymore” and “would turn [his] stuff in if [he] needed to.”

That sounded like a resignation to the city. And it took it as such.

Out of a job, he sued to allege the city violated the FMLA, as it should have understood he was only asking for a leave. But it sounded like a resignation to federal trial and appeals courts, too.

A federal judge granted the city judgment without a trial. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Paramedics Do Many More Runs

Montgomery Fire/Rescue (MFS) in Alabama hired Kyle Blake as a firefighter in 2012. He completed the required training and certification. And he became a firefighter-paramedic in 2015.

MFS firefighter-paramedics answer a lot of calls. They do as many as 400 runs per month compared to firefighters’ 38 or fewer monthly runs.

In 2016, Blake asked to be a firefighter again. His request was approved but never carried out.

Two years later, a staffing shortage had firefighter-paramedics working more than ever.

In August 2018, Blake was working a scheduled 24-hour shift when his district chief told him he had to go on to work a 24-hour overtime shift.

That meant he’d work for 48 hours immediately before an already scheduled 48-hour shift.

Blake said he “couldn’t do it anymore” and “would turn [his] stuff in if [he] needed to.” The district chief asked if he’d be willing to write “a letter or put something on paper for him.” Blake said no.

In a memo to the assistant chief, the district chief reported their exchange. The chief added that he’d asked Blake if he intended “to work [two] weeks” and Blake said no. And he wrote that two MFS officers had called to say Blake was “severely burned out” and his “decision” was not permanent. He noted that he thought “the Command Staff would have no problem[ ] … moving [Blake] to an assignment that will give him some relief.”

The Misunderstandings Pile Up

Before Blake left the station that day, he followed the rules by confirming another paramedic would cover the overtime shift.

Later that day, Blake told the district chief he hadn’t meant to be disrespectful. The district chief said he hadn’t realized Blake was “burned out that bad” and assured him he was “not past the point of no return.”

Blake thought that meant he’d work his next scheduled shift and that the MFS would transfer him to a firefighter job and refer him to the employee assistance program for additional help.

Instead, the assistant chief told Blake the next day that the MFS had “accepted [his] verbal resignation” and he must turn in his gear.

A city personnel form said Blake had resigned “NOT in good standing.”

FMLA Leave Interference Claim Fails …

The FMLA grants eligible employees up to 12 weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period for, among other things, “a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position[.]”

Employees can sue employers for interfering with their FMLA rights or retaliating against them for asserting their FMLA rights.

Blake said the city did both.

To state a valid interference claim, he had to show he had a serious health condition and gave the MFS proper notice.

Eleventh Circuit precedent also called for specifying the expected length of an FMLA leave and, barring unusual circumstances, following the employer’s procedures to request FMLA leave.

Blake knew the MFS’ procedures to request FMLA leave as he’d successfully followed them in the past.

Also, as a Florida federal court held in the 1995 decision Paasch v. City of Safety Harbor, the FMLA does not require employers to “divine unspoken (and even unthought) requests for leave.”

The Eleventh Circuit found: 1) Blake didn’t request FMLA leave for burnout, and 2) his saying he “couldn’t do it anymore” and “would turn [his] stuff in if [he] needed to” conveyed an intent to resign, not a request for leave.

… And So Does Retaliation Claim

To state a valid retaliation claim, Blake had to show: 1) he did something the FMLA protects from retaliation and 2) he suffered an adverse employment action because of it – here, being forced to resign.

But Blake couldn’t clear even the first hurdle as he never told anyone at work that he had an FMLA-qualifying condition and didn’t request FMLA leave for it.

The court added, “The mere fact that Mr. Blake faced a choice between comparable unpleasant alternatives (i.e., resignation and a continuing obligation to work overtime shifts) does not establish that his resignation was involuntary.”

The city was entitled to judgment.

Blake v. City of Montgomery, No. 20-14229, 2021 WL 5177429 (11th Cir. 11/8/21).

Filed under
  • Employment Law
  • Share on

Get the HRMorning Newsletter

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form

Free Training & Resources

Webinars

Transforming HR to Valued Organizational Business Partner

Webinars

Pandemic-Proof Your HR Processes

Webinars

Destigmatizing and Treating Addiction in the Workplace – DM

White Papers

Financial Wellness: A Key Pillar of a Comprehensive Benefits Package

Provided by Multiply

SPONSORED CONTENT

HR Technology

sponsored content
The Best AI Software for HR Automation

Courtesy of G-P

Talent Management

sponsored content
Powerful Employee Retention Strategies for 2025: How to Keep Your Best People

Courtesy of PEOPLEGURU

Benefits

Health Care

Wellness

sponsored content
Proven Results: 5 Ways Teladoc Health Chronic Condition Management Transforms HR Outcomes

Courtesy of TELADOC HEALTH

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
  • Payroll
CA Update: Minimum Wage Increases for Hotel Employees

Hospitality employers in California take note: Several cities in The Golden State have minimum wage increases for hotel employees soon taki...

  • Employment Law
Employer Pays $93K Over Revoked Job Offer

A California municipality has agreed to pay $93,000 to settle claims that it pulled a conditional job offer based on an applicant’s c...

  • Employment Law
EEOC plan demands renewed focus on preventing discrimination

Since its establishment on July 2, 1965, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been committed to its mission of eradicatin...

  • Employment Law
Fired employees file whistleblower complaints: Doggie daycare pays $50K in damages

  In Idaho, a doggie daycare facility and its former owner will pay $50,000 in general and punitive damages to resolve two former...

  • Employment Law
Did Anti-Racism Training Create a Hostile Work Environment?

A federal court in Pennsylvania rejected a white employee’s claim that his employer created a hostile work environment by subjecting him ...

  • Employment Law
Workers’ comp benefits denied: Court explains why employee’s claim was rejected

Alaska’s highest court affirmed the denial of workers’ comp benefits for a school nurse who alleged that she suffered from PTSD after u...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation
  • Policy & Procedures
  • Wellness
  • Staff Departure
  • HR Career & Self-Care
  • Health Care
  • Retirement Plans
  • DEI

HRMorning, part of the Rover Insights Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day's headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Powered By Rover Insights
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 Rover Insights
HRMorning Logo

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.