Levaine v. Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC, 680 F. App'x 390

Levaine was a long‑time employee covered by a union labor agreement and Tower’s anti‑harassment policy, which allowed termination in the employer’s sole discretion for policy violations.
Levaine had previously taken and been granted FMLA leave for his wife’s condition and his own anxiety; Tower had excused prior absences as FMLA leave.
On July 29, 2014 Levaine arrived a minute or two late, wrote “FMLA” on his timecard, and told a supervisor he was late because of FMLA; Tower never officially approved leave for that day.
Two days later, during a disciplinary meeting about the late arrival, Levaine shouted and (by co‑workers’ statements) threatened supervisor Kreider; management investigated and relied on independent statements from Kreider and the union steward.
Tower suspended and then fired Levaine for violating its anti‑harassment policy by threatening a supervisor; the company did not complete a determination on the July 29 FMLA request before firing him.
Levaine sued under the FMLA (interference and retaliation); the district court granted summary judgment for Tower and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA interference: Was Levaine entitled to FMLA leave for the July 29 late arrival and was it denied?	Levaine says he was entitled to FMLA for the late arrival and was disciplined despite that.	Tower says leave was never approved; Levaine failed to provide needed information and then obstructed investigation, so employer could deny leave.	Court: Levaine failed to show entitlement because Tower lacked sufficient information and Levaine prevented the employer from completing its inquiry; interference claim fails.
FMLA retaliation: Did Tower discipline/fire Levaine because he invoked FMLA rights?	Levaine points to temporal proximity between invoking FMLA and subsequent discipline/termination to show retaliatory motive.	Tower says it had a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason—Levaine threatened a supervisor—and the threat undermines any inference from timing.	Court: Temporal proximity alone insufficient; credible evidence that Levaine threatened a supervisor rebuts inference of pretext, so retaliation claim fails.

Hamilton Cty. Educ. Ass'n v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 822 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (requirements for FMLA entitlement and limits of temporal‑proximity inference)
Edgar v. JAC Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must show employer acted “specifically because” employee invoked FMLA)
Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2008) (burden on plaintiff to show employer’s stated reason is pretextual)