Barbara Perry v. American Red Cross, Nashville, 651 F. App'x 317

Barbara Perry, an Apheresis Specialist for the American Red Cross Tennessee Valley Region, accrued seven unscheduled absences in a rolling 12-month period and was terminated under the Red Cross absenteeism policy.
Perry had multiple medical conditions (post‑foot surgery limitations in 2010–2011, a May 2012 ladder fall, essential tremor, and cardiac/pulmonary issues) and received both continuous and intermittent FMLA approvals at various times.
In April 2012 the Red Cross outsourced leave administration to Aon Hewitt and notified employees that to use FMLA they must report absences to both their supervisor and Aon Hewitt. Perry admits she received this notice but did not call Aon Hewitt to report the absences that led to termination.
The termination memo listed seven specific unscheduled absences; Red Cross HR confirmed none were reported to Aon Hewitt as FMLA‑protected. Management testified the absenteeism policy excludes qualified FMLA and requires reporting to Aon Hewitt.
Perry filed EEOC charges and sued under the ADA and FMLA alleging failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, FMLA interference, and FMLA retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the Red Cross; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA reasonable‑accommodation claim — exhaustion	Perry argues employer failed to accommodate known disabilities.	Red Cross argues Perry did not exhaust EEOC remedies related to accommodation.	Affirmed: Perry waived/failed to exhaust accommodation claim (EEOC charge only alleged termination).
ADA disability‑discrimination (termination) — prima facie / pretext	Perry contends she was fired because of disabilities (multiple conditions).	Red Cross says termination was for violating neutral absenteeism policy (seven unscheduled incidents); proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.	Affirmed: even assuming disability, Perry failed to show pretext — absences were unscheduled and she did not follow call‑in/FMLA reporting rules.
FMLA interference	Perry asserts termination relied on absences that were FMLA‑protected, so employer interfered with FMLA rights.	Red Cross contends Perry failed to provide required notice to Aon Hewitt and some absences were not covered by FMLA (dates inconsistent with certifications).	Affirmed: Perry did not give required notice, and record does not show entitlement to FMLA for contested dates.
FMLA retaliation	Perry argues she was punished for using/requesting FMLA leave.	Red Cross points to neutral enforcement of attendance policy and lack of causal link.	Affirmed: Plaintiff’s retaliation theory rests on same deficient interference facts and fails.

Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and weighing evidence principles)
Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 2008) (ADA prohibition on disability discrimination)
Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (direct and circumstantial evidence frameworks under ADA)
Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2014) (ADA prima facie elements)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (methods to show pretext)
Jones v. Sumser Retirement Vill., 209 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 2000) (EEOC exhaustion: termination claim differs from accommodation claim)
Gradisher v. City of Akron, 794 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2015) (issues not developed on appeal are waived)
Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (FMLA interference/retaliation elements)
Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Mfg., LLC, 725 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2013) (employer may condition FMLA on usual notice procedures)