Try wrapping your head around this one.
All of you experts on the Family and Medical Leave Act, gather 'round!

The following is from a real lawsuit that was filed Wednesday in federal court in Indianapolis.
The plaintiff -- we'll call her "Annabelle" -- was an FMLA case manager for a health care employer. Actually, according to her lawsuit, her title was "[Annabelle] RN, BSN, CHNw Leave Team Case Manager/Benefits Administration."
Yeah, and I am "Robin E. Shea, A.B., J.D., Esquire, Attorney at Law."
Anyway, Annabelle had been with this employer since 2002, but she was fired in January 2025, allegedly in retaliation for internally objecting to certain FMLA policies that the company adopted in January 2025 and also for complaining to the U.S. Department of Labor about those policies.
BACKGROUND
At this early stage, all we have is Annabelle's lawsuit. The employer has not yet had a chance to respond.
Here's what she says (my commentary is in green, in honor of the upcoming St. Patrick's Day holiday):
For many years, the employer used a fixed year for determining the amount of FMLA leave an employee was entitled to. You know how that works, right? Let's say your fixed year is a calendar year. That means on January 1 of each year, your FMLA-eligible employees get a bright, shiny new 12-week chunk of unexhausted FMLA leave. Even if they took 12 weeks of FMLA leave in October, November, and December of the prior year.
Annabelle's employer decided to use a third-party administrator starting in 2025. But Annabelle wasn't going to lose her job. Her employer told her that her services would still be needed.
The new TPA decided that it would transition from a fixed FMLA leave year to a rolling 12-month period. In my experience, this is what most employers choose because they don't care for the scenario in which an employee could end up with six solid months of FMLA-protected leave. With a rolling 12-month period, the employee who took FMLA leave in October-December of Year 1 would not be eligible for any more FMLA leave until October of Year 2.
The TPA also said that it would give to each FMLA-eligible employee at the company a new 12-week block of unused FMLA leave effective January 1, 2025. Regardless of how much FMLA leave the employee had taken in 2024. In other words, it appears that the TPA didn't immediately put a true "rolling" period into place.
Nice!
But not nice to Annabelle. She was upset about the change. She argued with her bosses, called the U.S. Department of Labor, and complained to the TPA. She also told some employees and the employees' supervisors that the changes might result in the loss of already-approved FMLA leave. (Again, this is what she has alleged in her lawsuit.)
Her employment was eventually terminated, and now she's suing the employer for retaliation.
FMLA BRAIN TEASER
Here is the brain teaser:
Annabelle claims that changing to the rolling 12-month leave year means that employees who were FMLA-eligible in 2024 may not be FMLA-eligible in 2025. I had to read that a few times because it made no sense to me.
As an example, Annabelle claimed that one employee -- we'll call her Elsie -- worked part-time in 2024 and just barely had enough hours in 2024 to meet the 1,250-hour requirement for FMLA eligibility. OK. In late 2024, Elsie was approved for FMLA leave starting in early 2025. Great. But Annabelle claimed that because of the changes from the TPA, Elsie might no longer be eligible for FMLA leave in 2025.
How so? (Please feel free to answer in the comments.)
BONUS BRAIN TEASER: Also, Annabelle says, the company is required to provide advance notice to the employees about the new FMLA leave year, and the TPA said it was not going to do so. Despite Annabelle's sincere and persistent entreaties that it do so.
Assuming what she alleges is true, is Annabelle correct that the employer/TPA violated the FMLA by failing (or refusing) to provide in late 2024 a notice of the changes that would take effect in 2025 and later? Again, please feel free to answer in the comments.
SPOILER ALERT (aka "ANSWERS") BELOW
* * *
* * *
No. 1: Will Elsie become ineligible for FMLA leave in 2025 because the TPA changed leave years?
I say no.
It appears to me that Annabelle is confusing FMLA allotment with FMLA eligibility. Someone who administers the FMLA for a living ought to know that these are not the same thing.
The fixed-year-versus-rolling-year analysis applies when you are determining the amount of FMLA leave that an eligible employee has.
But eligibility to take FMLA leave is a different question. To determine whether an employee is eligible for FMLA leave, you look at three things:
- Has the employee been employed by the employer for at least 12 months? (The 12 months doesn't even have to be consecutive. An employee who worked for the employer six months in 2022, quit, and then was re-hired six months ago would meet the 12-month requirement.)
- Has the employee worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months immediately before the date that the FMLA leave would start?
- Does the employee work at a location that has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius? (This is not relevant to our discussion today, but it is a requirement for eligibility.)
Sorry to go "nerd" on you, but these eligibility requirements are addressed in the FMLA regulations at 29 C.F.R. Section 825.110 (scroll WAY down).
If the answer to all three of these questions is "yes," then the employee is eligible for FMLA leave. But that has nothing to do with the amount of FMLA leave that is available to the employee. Maybe the employee is eligible but already used up all of her available FMLA leave for the year.
Or maybe she wants the leave for a non-qualifying reason. In that case, her eligibility and allotment might be fine, but she still won't get the leave.
In other words, the TPA decision to use a different leave year did not affect anyone's eligibility for FMLA leave in the least. Since the 12-week allotment took effect for eligible employees on 1/1/25, presumably anyone who was eligible as of 1/1/25 was good. As long as Elsie was eligible that day (and it sounds like she was), then she should be fine.
No. 2: Does the change in leave years mean that Elsie will lose any of her FMLA allotment?
I say no.
Again, I apologize for the legalese, but the regulations governing the amount of leave to which an employee is entitled -- including the "leave year" -- are in 29 C.F.R. Section 825.200(d).
According to Annabelle, the TPA has already said that everybody who is FMLA-eligible gets a new bank of 12 weeks of FMLA leave for 2025, effective January 1. So if Elsie was eligible and approved to take FMLA leave in 2025, I don't see how she could have possibly suffered a reduction in her leave allotment as a result of the change.
No. 3: Did the TPA or employer violate the law by not providing 60 days' written notice of the change to the leave year?
Once again, I say no.
The FMLA regulations do require an employer to provide at least 60 days' prior notice to employees if it decides to change its FMLA "leave year." That's in the same section of the regs that I just linked three paragraphs ago. So Annabelle is correct about that much.
But I would expect the employer to argue that, in this situation, the notice deadline will not actually occur until 60 days before the end of 2025 (in other words, around next Halloween), since all eligible employees got the maximum allotment of FMLA leave effective 1/1/25.
But, you may ask, what if the fixed leave year previously used by the employer wasn't a calendar year? Suppose it was, say, July 1 through June 30?
No biggie. In that case, I'd send out the notices 60 days before June 30 (in other words, by April 30). But the TPA shouldn't have had to send out the notices as early as January, by which time Annabelle had already been discharged.
Whether the employer retaliated against Annabelle remains to be seen. One can engage in legally protected activity even if they are mistaken about the law. But as far as whether this employer or its TPA actually violated the FMLA, I think the answer is a clear "No."

- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
- Neil H. Wasser
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010