A recent federal court decision, Green v. Sugarhouse HSP Gaming LP, No. 2:25-cv-02193 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2026), provides guidance for employers navigating the interplay between protected medical leave and employee discipline. The decision by the Court shows how documentation, clear leave procedures, consistent policy enforcement, and evidence of legitimate business reasons can help employers defend disciplinary decisions involving employees who take intermittent leave in accordance with the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
By way of background, Robert Green (“Green”) began working in Rivers Casino’s security department (“Rivers”) in 2015. He later was promoted to a supervisory position in 2021. That same year, Green began experiencing health problems that required intermittent FMLA leave. Rivers had a written policy that required employees to notify both Rivers management and Rivers’ leave administrator, MetLife, when requesting qualifying FMLA leave. Under the Rivers’ policy, if an employee called out of work but did not provide the required notice to MetLife that the absence was for an FMLA related reason, that day could be recorded as a regular absence. Rivers also maintained an attendance policy under which employees who were absent more than eight times within a year could be terminated.
Green was well aware of Rivers’ call out policy and usually provided proper notice for his FMLA absences. During his employment, Green successfully notified MetLife of approximately 80 to 100 FMLA absences. When MetLife received the necessary information, it routinely issued approval letters, and those days did not count as regular absences. However, between April 22, 2023, and February 1, 2024, Green accumulated 9.5 recorded absences that were not FMLA related. In February 2024, Green contacted his supervisor to question whether some of the absences should have been treated as FMLA leave. Management reviewed the records and found no corresponding MetLife notifications from Green for the relevant dates. Rivers concluded that since Green had not notified MetLife about 9.5 of his absences, he had exceeded the regular absence threshold. Rivers terminated Green’s employment on February 19, 2024.
Green then filed suit, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as interference with and retaliation for exercising his FMLA rights. Rivers denied the allegations, maintaining that it had permitted Green to take FMLA leave whenever he followed the applicable notification procedures. According to Rivers, Green was terminated because he accumulated more absences than the attendance policy permitted without providing the required notice to MetLife of his need for FMLA leave.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in Rivers’ favor on all of Green’s claims. The Court found that Rivers identified a specific, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. Specifically, Green had exceeded the permitted number of absences under the attendance policy. Importantly, Green did not dispute that his recorded absences exceeded the policy’s threshold. Nor did he contend that he had provided timely notice to MetLife of FMLA leave for the dates that were considered to be absences. Instead, he argued that applying the attendance policy and the requirement to contact MetLife without considering reasonable accommodations could be considered unlawful.
The Court rejected Green’s argument because Green had successfully followed the MetLife notification process many times during his employment, and he did not identify evidence that his disability prevented him from complying with the process. Green also provided no evidence that he had informed Rivers that he needed an accommodation related to the notification requirement. The Court emphasized that a different result might be warranted if an employee’s disability prevented timely notification and the employer refused to consider a reasonable accommodation.
The Court’s decision highlights the fact that employees who take intermittent FMLA leave are not necessarily exempt from otherwise lawful attendance policies. Employers may enforce discipline requirements when employees fail to follow applicable leave notification procedures, provided that the policies are made known to the employees and that they are administered consistently.
