Christopher Alexander v. Kellogg USA, 674 F. App'x 496

Alexander worked as a production operator at Kellogg’s Rossville, TN plant and was terminated in January 2014 for excessive unexcused absences.
Kellogg’s attendance policy assigns points for unexcused absences; termination follows accrual of too many points. FMLA and workers’ compensation absences require documentation and are administered/verified through Cigna.
Cigna had approved intermittent or continuous FMLA leave for Alexander many times; Cigna required employees to report intermittent absences to Cigna within 48 hours by phone or online to be excused.
On Nov. 20 and Dec. 9–11, 2013, Alexander notified Kellogg by the plant call-in system but failed to report those absences to Cigna within 48 hours; Cigna denied those dates as FMLA-protected.
Kellogg later issued successive disciplinary notices (final reprimand, probation, suspension) based on the unexcused absences and terminated Alexander on Jan. 28, 2014. Alexander sued for FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, and Tennessee workers’ compensation retaliation.
The district court granted summary judgment to Kellogg; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding Alexander failed to make out prima facie cases on all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA interference — did Kellogg deny Alexander FMLA leave?	Alexander contends he had approved intermittent FMLA and notified Kellogg, so denial of FMLA-protection for certain absences was unlawful.	Kellogg (via Cigna) validly denied those absences as FMLA-protected because Alexander failed to comply with the 48-hour reporting requirement to Cigna.	Held for Kellogg — Alexander failed to show required notice to Cigna; no prima facie interference.
FMLA retaliation — was termination retaliatory for exercising FMLA rights?	Alexander asserts termination was motivated by his exercise of FMLA leave.	Kellogg argues the termination was for excessive unexcused absences (dates Cigna denied), not for protected FMLA activity.	Held for Kellogg — absence days were not FMLA-protected, so no protected activity; no prima facie retaliation.
Workers’ compensation retaliation — was termination motivated by prior WC claims?	Alexander argues prior workers’ compensation claims (2010, 2012) played a role in termination.	Kellogg contends decisionmakers did not rely on or know of those prior WC claims; termination was based on attendance points.	Held for Kellogg — Alexander offered no direct or compelling circumstantial evidence that WC claims substantially motivated termination; no prima facie case.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination/retaliation claims)
Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tenn., Inc., 454 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements for FMLA interference prima facie case)
Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (elements for FMLA retaliation prima facie case)
Srouder v. Dana Light Axle Mfg., LLC, 725 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2013) (employer may enforce internal notice requirements under 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d))
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; no mere scintilla rule)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Co., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment review principles)
Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962 (6th Cir.) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge)