In Tilley v Kalamazoo County Road Commission a 59 year-old road commission employee raised unlawful termination claims against his employer under both the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). No. 14-1679, 2015 WL 304190 (CA 6 January 26, 2015). While the district court dismissed the employee’s ELCRA and FMLA claims following the Road Commission’s motion for summary judgment, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the employee's FMLA claim and concluded there was sufficient evidence of equitable estoppel regarding the employee's eligibility for FMLA benefits.

The employee in Tilley took medical leave after "he experienced symptoms that made him fear he was suffering a heart attack”; the employee believed his medical leave was covered by the FMLA. Despite his belief, however, the employee was later notified that he failed to timely submit various work projects and was terminated. The employee filed suit following his termination and claimed that the Road Commission "interfered with his right to, and retaliated against him for taking, medical leave under the [FMLA]."

As outlined by the Sixth Circuit, the FMLA provides qualified employees “a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for . . . a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee[,]" and "[t]he taking of leave . . . shall not result in the loss of any employment benefit accrued prior to the date on which the leave commenced." However, as the Sixth Circuit points out, FMLA benefits are available only to "eligible" employees.

While the employee in Tilley did not qualify as an "eligible" employee under the FMLA (his employer did not employ 50 employees at, or within 75 miles of, his worksite at the time he gave his employer notice of his need for medical leave) there was sufficient evidence of equitable estoppel to preclude the employer’s claim that the employee was ineligible for benefits. For example, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Road Commission's Personnel Manual contained a clear misrepresentation as to his eligibility to apply for FMLA benefits: it stated, "[e]mployees covered under the [FMLA] are full-time employees who have worked for the Road Commission and accumulated 1,250 work hours in the previous 12 months." The Sixth Circuit found this to be "an unambiguous and unqualified statement" that the employee at issue in Tilley, as well as other employees who have similarly logged 1,250 hours in the year before seeking FMLA leave, are covered by the FMLA and eligible to apply for FMLA benefits.

Notably, the employee in Tilley was able to meet the “reliance” element of his equitable estoppel claim, and therefore withstand summary judgment, by submitting an affidavit attesting that he would have foregone his medical leave at the time had he known that he was not entitled to FMLA.