Donna Nicholson v. Pulte Homes Corp, 690 F.3d 819

Nicholson was a Pulte Homes sales associate terminated after failure to meet sales goals and while caring for ill parents.
Pulte's handbook required 30 days’ advance notice and certification to determine FMLA eligibility; notice must be to Human Resources.
Nicholson discussed her father’s cancer in late 2008 and mentioned potential time off in early 2009; no explicit FMLA leave requests were made.
Nicholson received a 60-day performance-improvement plan in May–June 2009 for underperformance and attitude concerns; progress was lacking.
Nicholson requested a day off in April 2009 to attend a doctor’s appointment with her father; additional leave requests occurred around June 23–24, culminating in termination.
Decision to terminate was made June 22, 2009; Nicholson was informed of termination on June 24 without a stated reason beyond performance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nicholson provided sufficient notice to trigger FMLA rights	Nicholson alerted employer to serious family-health needs and sought leave.	Nicholson failed to follow internal notice procedures and did not reasonably notify to trigger FMLA protections.	Summary judgment for Pulte; no adequate inquiry notice given.
Whether Pulte denied or interfered with FMLA rights	Employer’s actions and denial of leave rights affected FMLA benefits.	No denial of FMLA rights; leave requests were managed through ordinary procedures and not withheld.	No interference; district court correct.
Whether Nicholson engaged in protected FMLA activity for retaliation claim	Requests for leave or time off qualify as protected activity.	No adequate FMLA notice means no protected activity; otherwise timing insufficient to show retaliation.	No protected activity proven; retaliation claim fails.

Burnett v. LFW Inc., 472 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2006) (requires evidence of or a pattern suggesting entitlement and notification for interference claims)
Kauffman v. Fed. Express Corp., 426 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2005) (retaliation claims require proof of discriminatory intent or adverse action)
Goelzer v. Sheboygan County, Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2010) (clarifies standards for FMLA interference and retaliation)
Righi v. SMC Corp., 632 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2011) (set forth framework for summary-judgment analysis on FMLA claims)
Stevenson v. Hyre Elec. Co., 505 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2007) (notice sufficiency and FMLA leave qualification guidance)
Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass, GmbH, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2004) (employee need not plead FMLA by name to trigger notice duties)