Jeff Pagel v. TIN Incorporated, 695 F.3d 622

Pagel sues his employer, Tin Inc., under the FMLA for interference and retaliation.
District court granted summary judgment, holding Pagel was fired for poor performance, not for taking leave.
Pagel argues his medical leave (including surgeries and hospital stays) was protected by FMLA.
Tin had implemented performance evaluations and ride-alongs, which Pagel challenged as pretextual.
Key events include the August 24 performance meeting and the September 19 ride-along that preceded termination.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reverses, finding genuine factual disputes about interference and pretext.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pagel was entitled to FMLA leave	Pagel had a serious health condition qualifying for FMLA leave.	Tin disputes whether Pagel’s condition qualifies as a serious health condition under the FMLA.	Pagel entitled to FMLA leave; condition qualifies as serious health condition.
Whether Pagel provided sufficient notice of FMLA leave	Pagel notified Kremer of his medical needs and hospitalizations; notices were adequate.	Pagel’s notice was ambiguous or incomplete.	There remains a genuine issue of material fact on notice.
Whether Tin interfered with Pagel’s FMLA rights by conditioning employment on unadjusted expectations	Tin used Pagel’s protected leave as a factor in termination and failed to adjust expectations.	Termination based on pure performance issues, independent of leave.	There is a triable issue whether interference occurred.
Whether Tin retaliated against Pagel for exercising FMLA rights	Evidence shows a causal link between leave and termination; pretext exists.	Termination for poor performance, with no retaliatory motive proven.	Sufficient evidence of a causal link creates a triable issue for retaliation.
Whether Pagel waived or abandoned the interference claim on appeal	Discussions of discriminatory intent relate to interference; not waived.	Appeal arguments focused on retaliation, not interference.	Pagel did not waive the interference claim.

Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 662 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2011) (elements for FMLA interference claim)
Goelzer v. Sheboygan Cnty., Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2010) (notice requirement under FMLA)
Burnett v. LFW Inc., 472 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2006) (notice and inference for retaliation analysis)
Kohls v. Beverly Enters. Wis., Inc., 259 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2001) (employer may show employee would have been fired for performance)
Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2009) (pretext and FMLA interference framework)
Lewis v. School District #70, 523 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2008) (adjustment of performance standards during FMLA leave)
Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 2003) (courts defer to business decisions at summary judgment)
Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass, GmbH, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2004) (FMLA notice includes implied leave requests)
Jajeh v. Cnty. of Cook, 678 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012) (convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence in retaliation)
Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr., 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (circumstantial evidence can establish causation)