In Scobey v Nucor Steel-Arkansas. , employee Scobey had 4 unexcused absences from April 10-13, 2005. On April 9, he called to ask his supervisor to call him, but did not say why. They finally spoke on April 11, but Scobey was intoxicated, and said he was having a nervous breakdown. They spoke again during this period, and Scobey was again intoxicated, saying he was through with his job. He returned to work, was demoted, and eventually stopped coming to work. He was terminated, and sued, alleging he should have been granted FMLA leave, but the trial court granted summary judgment for his employer. The Appellate Court ruled:

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Scobey did not give adequate notice of his need for leave as required under the FMLA. He called his supervisor without stating the reason for the call and when they finally spoke during a later call, he was intoxicated and did not mention the need for FMLA leave. Therefore, the employer cannot be held liable for not providing FMLA leave. Scobey did not give adequate notice of his need for leave as required under the FMLA. While he did speak with his supervisor during his absence, he did not clearly communicate that he needed FMLA leave due to a serious health condition. Additionally, his behavior while speaking with his supervisor (being intoxicated and saying he was through with his job) did not indicate a need for FMLA leave. Therefore, the appellate court ruled in favor of the employer.

In Scobey V Nucor Steel-Arkansas