Leigh Holland worked for Texas Christian University (“TCU”) for over two decades in various staff roles in the Athletics Department, including Facilities and Event Coordinator, Office Manager, and Facilities and Operations Coordinator. In early 2023, she applied for and was granted leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) due to mental health concerns, which she described in her FMLA application as related to anxiety and depression. TCU said while she was on leave, various problems with her performance became apparent. As a result, on the day she returned from leave, TCU informed her that her employment would be terminated. Holland alleged that the termination was in retaliation for taking FMLA leave and filed suit in federal district court, asserting one count that encompassed claims for FMLA interference, discrimination, and retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 2615.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of TCU, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The key issue on appeal was whether Holland was actually entitled to FMLA leave in the first place. Under 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D), an eligible employee may take FMLA leave if they are unable to perform the essential functions of their position due to a “serious health condition.”
Both Holland and her treating physician, however, admitted that she was never unable to perform her job functions. Holland testified that she remained capable of working throughout her leave and continued to engage in daily activities such as driving, self-care, and managing a rental property. Because she failed to show incapacity, the Court held that she did not qualify for leave under the statute.
Holland also argued that she had a “chronic serious health condition” under 29 C.F.R. § 825.115(c), but the Court rejected this theory as both waived (because it was not raised before) and unsupported by evidence. Even under the chronic condition standard, FMLA protection requires proof of episodic incapacity or treatment-related limitations, which Holland did not provide. The Court emphasized that “incapacity” means the inability to work, attend school, or perform other regular daily activities due to a serious health condition—a threshold Holland did not meet.
The Court also considered and rejected Holland’s alternative argument that TCU should be estopped from challenging her FMLA eligibility. Under the Fifth Circuit’s test for equitable estoppel in the FMLA context, an employer may be barred from denying leave eligibility if (1) it represented that the employee was eligible, (2) the employee reasonably relied on that representation, and (3) the employee suffered detriment as a result. Here, while TCU had approved Holland’s FMLA request, the Court found no evidence that Holland had detrimentally relied on that approval. In fact, she testified that she would have taken the full amount of leave regardless of whether it was formally approved. This undercut any claim of reliance and defeated her estoppel theory.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of her claims in full.
Holland v. Texas Christian University (5th Cir. 2025) 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23484
Note: This case underscores the importance of verifying FMLA eligibility at the outset of a leave request. In addition, even if leave is approved, an employee must still meet the definitions for leave under the statute.