A Michigan engineer, long troubled by epilepsy, agreed with his doctor that he would try an elective surgical procedure meant to reduce his seizures. He told his employer what date he had selected for the surgery and requested a leave of absence. The company provided him with paperwork on time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and he ultimately took a week’s paid vacation and some 7 weeks’ medical leave. But on his return, he was laid off!

What happened. “Doyle” joined Jay Dee Contractors in 2003 as a mechanical engineer and was immediately assigned to a project at the Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant. His physician cleared him for surgery in July 2004, scheduling it for mid-October. Doyle told his immediate supervisor, and then Jay Dee’s president, of the schedule. They agreed that Doyle would be given leave for the procedure and met to discuss details.

When he’d filled out an application for FMLA, the company committed in writing to holding his job open for 12 weeks beginning October 18. However, when Doyle returned to work on December 13, the president informed him he was being laid off that day. The wastewater project was nearly over, he said, and there was no further need for his position. Could he get a transfer? No, no engineers were needed elsewhere.

Doyle sued for violation of his rights under FMLA for failure to hold his job for him. But in the meantime, Jay Dee had realized that Doyle was never eligible for FMLA: The company had fewer than 50 employees at the wastewater site and no others within a 75-mile radius. Deciding that Doyle had not “relied to his detriment” on the company’s assurances, a federal district court judge dismissed his case. Doyle appealed to the 6th Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

What the court said. The crux of this case was that Doyle couldn’t show—indeed, didn’t even try to—that he would have foregone or postponed the surgery had Jay Dee not assured him he could have FMLA leave. So appellate judges ruled that the company’s mistake hadn’t harmed him, that he never was eligible for FMLA, and that his job wasn’t eliminated in retaliation for his leave. Dobrowski v. Jay Dee Contractors, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, No. 08-1806 (7/8/09).

Point to remember: Doyle testified that when he asked the president why he hadn’t been told sooner about the layoff, the president said, “Why? So you could stay on medical leave?” We believe that statement was the reason Doyle sued. Most people who file lawsuits are angry. Employers can’t always prevent that anger, but this one could have.