The Fam­i­ly and Med­ical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) pro­vides eli­gi­ble employ­ees with the right to take unpaid, job-pro­tect­ed leave for cer­tain fam­i­ly and med­ical rea­sons. But what hap­pens when an employ­er alleged­ly blocks, dis­cour­ages, or denies that leave? That’s where the inter­fer­ence claim comes in. This arti­cle dives into the legal foun­da­tion for FMLA inter­fer­ence claims, what employ­ees must prove, the defens­es employ­ers can raise, and the dam­ages avail­able to suc­cess­ful claimants.

Whether you’re an employ­er try­ing to com­ply with your FMLA oblig­a­tions or an employ­ee won­der­ing if your rights have been vio­lat­ed, under­stand­ing inter­fer­ence claims is essential.

---

What Is an Interference Claim?

The FMLA pro­hibits employ­ers from inter­fer­ing with, restrain­ing, or deny­ing the exer­cise of—or the attempt to exercise—any rights pro­vid­ed under the Act. This broad lan­guage gives rise to the inter­fer­ence claim, some­times called a “§ 2615(a)(1) claim” after the statute that cre­ates it.

Statutory Basis

The key statu­to­ry pro­vi­sion is:

“It shall be unlaw­ful for any employ­er to inter­fere with, restrain, or deny the exer­cise of or the attempt to exer­cise, any right pro­vid­ed under this sub­chap­ter.”
—29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)

Regulatory Guidance

The U.S. Depart­ment of Labor’s FMLA reg­u­la­tions expand on this, stating:

“Any vio­la­tions of the Act or of these reg­u­la­tions con­sti­tute inter­fer­ing with, restrain­ing, or deny­ing the exer­cise of rights pro­vid­ed by the Act.”
—29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b)

The reg­u­la­tions also make clear that inter­fer­ence includes not only out­right denials of leave, but also more sub­tle forms of discouragement:

“Employ­ers can­not use the tak­ing of FMLA leave as a neg­a­tive fac­tor in employ­ment actions.”
—29 C.F.R. § 825.220©

In short, if an employ­er does any­thing that pre­vents an employ­ee from using or ben­e­fit­ing from their FMLA rights, that may qual­i­fy as interference.

---

What Must an Employee Prove?

Unlike retal­i­a­tion claims (which require proof of motive), FMLA inter­fer­ence claims are strict liability—the employer’s intent doesn’t mat­ter. The employ­ee must estab­lish the fol­low­ing elements:

1. The employee was eligible for FMLA leave.

To be eli­gi­ble, the employ­ee must:

• Have worked for a cov­ered employer.
• Have worked at least 12 months (not nec­es­sar­i­ly consecutively).
• Have worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months pri­or to the leave.
• Work at a loca­tion where the employ­er has at least 50 employ­ees with­in 75 miles.

29 U.S.C. § 2611(2) defines eligibility.

2. The employer was covered under the FMLA.

Gen­er­al­ly, an employ­er is cov­ered if it:

• Is a pri­vate-sec­tor employ­er with 50 or more employ­ees for 20 or more work­weeks in the cur­rent or pre­ced­ing cal­en­dar year; or
• Is a pub­lic agency or pub­lic or pri­vate ele­men­tary or sec­ondary school, regard­less of the num­ber of employ­ees.
  29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)

3. The employee was entitled to FMLA leave.

This includes leave for:

• The birth or place­ment of a child.
• The employee’s own seri­ous health condition.
• To care for a spouse, child, or par­ent with a seri­ous health condition.
• Cer­tain qual­i­fy­ing exi­gen­cies relat­ed to mil­i­tary service.

See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1).

4. The employee gave proper notice.

• For fore­see­able leave, the employ­ee must give at least 30 days’ notice, if practicable.
• For unfore­see­able leave, notice must be giv­en as soon as practicable.

29 C.F.R. §§ 825.302–825.303

5. The employer denied FMLA benefits to which the employee was entitled.

This can include:

• Deny­ing leave.
• Fail­ing to restore the employ­ee to the same or equiv­a­lent job.
• Ter­mi­nat­ing the employ­ee dur­ing or after leave.
• Dis­cour­ag­ing the employ­ee from tak­ing leave.

Cru­cial­ly, the employ­ee does not have to show that the employ­er act­ed with retal­ia­to­ry intent. The focus is on whether the rights were denied or impaired.

---

What Are Common Examples of Interference?

Here are some real-world sce­nar­ios that can give rise to inter­fer­ence claims:

• Denial of Leave: The employ­er refus­es to approve FMLA leave for a qual­i­fy­ing reason.
• Fail­ure to Rein­state: The employ­ee is not restored to the same or equiv­a­lent posi­tion after return­ing from leave.
• Leave Dis­cour­age­ment: A man­ag­er tells an employ­ee that tak­ing FMLA leave will “hurt their career.”
• Count­ing FMLA Leave Against Atten­dance: The employ­er uses FMLA absences in a points-based atten­dance policy.
• Requir­ing Work Dur­ing Leave: An employ­er demands that the employ­ee respond to emails or com­plete work while on leave.
• Mis­clas­si­fi­ca­tion of Leave: The employ­er treats FMLA leave as per­son­al or unex­cused absence.

---

What Defenses Do Employers Have?

While FMLA inter­fer­ence is a strict lia­bil­i­ty claim, employ­ers still have defens­es. The most com­mon ones include:

1. Employee Was Not Entitled to Leave

If the employ­ee didn’t meet eli­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria or the rea­son for leave didn’t qual­i­fy under the FMLA, then no inter­fer­ence occurred.

2. Lack of Proper Notice

If the employ­ee didn’t pro­vide ade­quate notice or failed to fol­low com­pa­ny pro­ce­dures, the employ­er may not be liable—provided the employ­er gave clear notice of those requirements.

3. Legitimate, Non-FMLA Grounds for Termination

If an employ­er can show that the employ­ee would have been ter­mi­nat­ed regard­less of the leave, the inter­fer­ence claim may fail. For example:

• Lay­offs due to downsizing.
• Mis­con­duct unre­lat­ed to the leave.
• Job elim­i­na­tion.

As explained in 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a):

“An employ­ee has no greater right to rein­state­ment or to oth­er ben­e­fits and con­di­tions of employ­ment than if the employ­ee had been con­tin­u­ous­ly employed dur­ing the FMLA leave period.”

This is often lit­i­gat­ed. Courts will close­ly scru­ti­nize whether the ter­mi­na­tion was tru­ly unre­lat­ed to the leave.

4. Good Faith Error (Limited Use)

While not a full defense to lia­bil­i­ty, good faith can reduce or elim­i­nate liq­ui­dat­ed dam­ages (see below).

---

What Damages Are Available?

Employ­ees who pre­vail on an inter­fer­ence claim may recov­er the fol­low­ing, under 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a):

1. Back Pay and Benefits

This includes wages, salary, and employ­ment ben­e­fits lost due to the vio­la­tion. For exam­ple, if an employ­ee was ter­mi­nat­ed in vio­la­tion of the FMLA, back pay would cov­er the peri­od from ter­mi­na­tion to judg­ment or reinstatement.

2. Actual Monetary Losses

This can include out-of-pock­et costs relat­ed to the vio­la­tion, such as:

• Costs of main­tain­ing health insur­ance if the employ­er failed to do so.
• Addi­tion­al child care or med­ical expens­es caused by the denial of leave.

3. Equitable Relief

Courts may order:

• Rein­state­ment to the for­mer position.
• Pro­mo­tion (if the employ­ee would have been pro­mot­ed but for the interference).
• Declara­to­ry or injunc­tive relief.

4. Liquidated Damages

These are equal to the amount of back pay and actu­al damages—essentially dou­bling the recovery.

The employ­er can avoid liq­ui­dat­ed dam­ages only by showing:

• The vio­la­tion was in good faith; and
• The employ­er had rea­son­able grounds for believ­ing it was not vio­lat­ing the FMLA.

5. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Pre­vail­ing employ­ees are also enti­tled to recov­er rea­son­able attorney’s fees, expert wit­ness fees, and court costs.

---

Final Thoughts

Inter­fer­ence claims under the FMLA are a pow­er­ful tool for enforc­ing employ­ees’ rights to take pro­tect­ed leave. The stan­dard is employ­ee-friend­ly in many respects—especially because intent or bad motive is not required. How­ev­er, employ­ers can suc­cess­ful­ly defend against these claims if they can show the leave was not FMLA-qual­i­fy­ing or that legit­i­mate busi­ness rea­sons jus­ti­fied their actions.

For employ­ers, the take­away is to train man­agers care­ful­ly, doc­u­ment all employ­ment deci­sions, and ensure con­sis­tent appli­ca­tion of leave poli­cies. For employ­ees, the key is to under­stand your rights, give prop­er notice, and seek legal advice if you believe your rights have been violated.