Kimberly Anderson v. McIntosh Construction, LLC, 597 F. App'x 313

Anderson, hired as a finance controller in Aug 2010, experienced ongoing tension with co-worker Garza, causing stress and health deterioration.
In Mar 2011, Anderson requested to work from home the next day; supervisor Brown approved but warned it not be a regular arrangement.
During spring 2011, Brown decided to replace Anderson; McIntosh posted ads and Anderson learned of them in Aug 2011.
Anderson quit McIntosh in Oct 2011 for a similar role at another company, citing a hostile work environment that worsened her health.
Anderson filed an FMLA suit in Apr 2013; district court granted summary judgment for McIntosh.
The issue is whether McIntosh violated or interfered with Anderson’s FMLA rights, or retaliated for protected activity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did McIntosh interfere by not offering leave?	Anderson contends she needed leave for stress-related health issues.	No leave request or notice of need for FMLA leave was made.	No interference; no FMLA notice evident.
Was firing based on absences a violation given FMLA eligibility?	Absences tied to health conditions should be protected under FMLA.	Anderson was not yet eligible for FMLA; fired before eligibility.	No violation; ineligibility at the time of action.
Did Anderson engage in protected activity under the FMLA to support retaliation claim?	Anderson engaged in protected activity by requesting or taking FMLA leave.	No evidence of FMLA leave request or protected activity.	No retaliation claim; no protected activity shown.

Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, LLC, 747 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2014) (establishes framework for FMLA interference and eligibility analysis)
Cavin v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 346 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2003) (employee must request leave with sufficient notice for FMLA applicability)
Brohm v. JH Properties, Inc., 149 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 1998) (employer not obliged to grant leave without employee request or notice)