U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 28— FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAVE

29 U.S.C. § 2615

Prohibited acts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Interference with rights(1) Exercise of rights

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.

(2) Discrimination

It shall be unlawful for any employer to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by this subchapter.

(b) Interference with proceedings or inquiriesIt shall be unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual because such individual—(1) has filed any charge, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to this subchapter;(2) has given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this subchapter; or(3) has testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this subchapter.(Pub. L. 103–3, title I, § 105, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 14.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 6 months after Feb. 5, 1993, except that, in the case of collective bargaining agreements in effect on that effective date, section applicable on the earlier of (1) the date of termination of such agreement, or (2) the date that occurs 12 months after Feb. 5, 1993, see section 405(b) of Pub. L. 103–3, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,570 cases (864 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1). Nor may employers ―discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful.”
Joseph Egan v. Delaware River Port Auth., 851 F.3d 263 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1). The FMLA also makes it “unlawful for any employer to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by this subchapter.”
Phillips v. Mathews, 547 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “2006) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1)(2)). A In order to state a claim for interference under the FMLA, Phillips must have given notice of her need for FMLA leave.”
Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 429 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 8× “Second, he alleged that Nichols fired him in retaliation for his taking medical leave, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615 . After the close of discovery, Nichols filed on August 2, 2004 a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint.”
Penny Bachelder Mark Bachelder v. Am. West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 6× “29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1). 8 The regulations explain that this prohibition encompasses an employer’s consideration of an employee’s use of FMLA-covered leave in making adverse employment decisions: [E]mployers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment…”
Lori Hoge, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 384 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 7× “The district court ruled that Defendant violated the - FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615 (a)(1) and 2614(a), by failing to reinstate Plaintiff to her position on the door line or an equivalent position by June 28, 2000.”
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002). · cites it 4× “" 29 U. S. C. § 2615 . The Court appears to see two different kinds of conflict.”
Gary Waag v. Sotera Def. Solutions, Inc., 857 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “The FMLA makes it “unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under [the FMLA].”
Wysong v. Dow Chem. Co., 503 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “There are two recovery theories available under the FMLA: the interference theory, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1), and the retaliation theory, pursuant to 29 U.”
Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “The FMLA makes it unlawful for any employer "to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided [by the Act]," 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1), or to "discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any…”
Quinn v. St. Louis Cnty., 653 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 5× “29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1). Quinn is right that FMLA interference includes “not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but discouraging an employee from using such leave,” as well as “manipulation by a covered employer to avoid responsibilities under [the] FMLA.”
Darst Ex Rel. Bankr. Est. of Chalimoniuk v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “Chalimoniuk sued IBC and Gordon, alleging that his termination constituted a wrongful denial of FMLA benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1). 6 The district court found that Chalimoniuk lacked evidence that he was in treatment for alcoholism on July 29, August 2 and…”
Show all 2,570 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a) — 2 cases
Vallejo v. DeJoy (D. Conn. 2025).
Robinson v. Overnite Transp Co (4th Cir. 1997).
— 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) — 7 cases
Cynthia Adams v. Fayette Home Care & Hospice, 452 F. App'x 137 (3rd Cir. 2011).
Walker v. Elmore Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (M.D. Ala. 2002).
Rood v. Umatilla Cnty., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Or. 2007).
Galloway v. Boise City Ada Cnty. Hous. Authorities (D. Idaho 2022).
Hamilton v. Norfolk S. Corp. (S.D. Ohio 2024).
— 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2) — 4 cases
Gonzalez v. Glendale, City of (D. Ariz. 2020).
Galloway v. Boise City Ada Cnty. Hous. Authorities (D. Idaho 2022).
James C. Jackson v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., et al. (E.D. Wis. 2025).
Hopkins v. Mwr Mgmt. Co., 2016 NCBC 38 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2016).
— 29 U.S.C. § 2615(b) — 1 case
Johnson v. Spencer (E.D. Pa. 2020).
— 29 U.S.C. § 2615(l)(b) — 1 case
Stillwell v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (D. Or. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.