March 24, 2025
Understanding the Blattner FMLA Lawsuit
Court Denies Blattner’s Motion for Summary Judgment in FMLA Case: What This Means for Minnesota Employees
A significant victory for employee rights occurred on March 11, 2025, when Judge John R. Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Blattner Holding Company’s motion for summary judgment in a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) case. This ruling allows our client, Kimberly Ahmann, to proceed with her claims of FMLA interference and retaliation against her former employer.
Background on the Family and Medical Leave Act
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), is a federal law that grants eligible employees the right to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons. Enacted in 1993, the FMLA aims to balance the demands of work and family life while promoting equal employment opportunity. This law applies to employers with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius and requires employees to have worked for the employer for at least 12 months and completed at least 1,250 hours of service in the 12 months preceding the start of leave.
Under the FMLA, eligible employees are entitled to up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave per year for various medical reasons, including serious health conditions, the birth or adoption of a child, or to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition. During this leave, employees are entitled to the continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if they had not taken leave. This ensures that employees can focus on their health and family needs without the added stress of losing their job or health insurance.
Case Background: Ahmann v. Blattner Holding Company
Kimberly Ahmann worked for Blattner Holding Company for approximately three years as an instructional designer. For the first two years of her employment, she had no performance issues and received positive feedback, including a raise and bonuses. Ahmann’s employment was governed by standard employment contracts, which outlined her job responsibilities, performance expectations, and the terms of her employment.
In March 2021, Ahmann began experiencing health issues that worsened over time, eventually requiring hospitalization and surgery in December 2021. The timeline shows a concerning pattern:
March 2021: Ahmann began having health issues and informed her supervisor
April 2021: Ahmann received her first oral warning
July 2021: Ahmann received a written warning and inquired about FMLA leave
December 2021: Ahmann was hospitalized and required surgery
January 2022: Ahmann returned to work
June 2022: Ahmann was terminated, allegedly for poor performance
Throughout this period, Ms. Ahmann believed she was covered by FMLA for her absences, while Blattner claimed it never received proper FMLA documentation.
The Blattner FMLA Lawsuit: A Case of Wrongful Termination
The Blattner FMLA lawsuit serves as a significant example of the critical importance of understanding and respecting FMLA rights. Judge Tunheim denied Blattner’s motion for summary judgment on both Ahmann’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact that must be decided by a jury. The court identified several key disputed issues:
FMLA Eligibility: Whether Ahmann completed proper FMLA documentation and whether intermittent leave was medically necessary
Knowledge of FMLA Need: Whether Blattner had sufficient knowledge of Ahmann’s need for FMLA leave beginning in March 2021
Interference with FMLA Rights: Whether Blattner failed to notify Ahmann of her FMLA rights, failed to record FMLA absences, and discouraged her from using FMLA leave
Pretextual Termination: Whether Blattner’s stated reason for termination (poor performance) was actually a pretext for FMLA retaliation
Navigating the legal process in such cases is complex, requiring experienced legal counsel to guide clients through the intricacies of employment law and ensure their rights are protected.
The court noted that “nothing in the record indicates that Ahmann had any problems at work prior to the spring of 2021, when both her health and work status began to disintegrate.” The court concluded this timing creates a significant factual dispute about whether Blattner’s actions constituted FMLA interference and retaliation.
Employment Law Implications
The FMLA has far-reaching implications in the area of employment law, particularly concerning wrongful termination, employment retaliation. Employers are legally obligated to comply with FMLA regulations, providing eligible employees with the necessary leave and benefits. Failure to do so can lead to costly lawsuits, significant fines, and damage to the employer’s reputation.
For employees, understanding their rights under the FMLA is crucial. They should be aware of the signs of FMLA interference and retaliation, such as sudden performance criticisms following a leave request or discouragement from formally using FMLA leave. By being informed, employees can better protect themselves and seek legal counsel if they suspect their rights are being violated.
Important Family and Medical Leave Rights for Minnesota Employees
This Blattner medical leave case highlights several critical rights that all employees should understand about the FMLA:
1. Notice Requirements for Eligible Employees
Employers must notify eligible employees of their FMLA rights within five days of gaining knowledge that an employee’s leave may qualify under FMLA. Blattner’s alleged failure to provide this notice is a central issue in the case.
2. Documentation Requirements
While employers can request medical certification for FMLA leave, they cannot use paperwork issues as an excuse to deny legitimately needed leave. In this case, there’s a dispute about whether completed documentation was properly submitted and received.
3. Protection Against Discouragement
The court recognized that “interference with FMLA rights includes discouraging an employee from using FMLA leave.” If your employer tells you to “just work out a schedule” instead of using FMLA, this could constitute illegal interference.
4. Protection Against Retaliation for Job Protected Leave
Employers cannot take adverse employment actions against employees for exercising their FMLA rights. The suspicious timing between Ahmann’s health issues, FMLA inquiries, and eventual termination creates a strong temporal link that could indicate retaliation.
Employment lawyers play a critical role in representing employees who face retaliation, ensuring they receive fair treatment and legal protection.
Red Flags for Employees to Watch For
Based on the allegations in this case, employees should be alert to these warning signs that may indicate FMLA violations:
Performance criticism that begins after health issues arise: If you had positive performance reviews until you needed medical leave, sudden criticism may be suspicious.
Discouragement from using FMLA: If HR or supervisors suggest you don’t need to “formally” use FMLA, this could be an attempt to avoid providing legally protected leave.
Failure to acknowledge FMLA status: If your employer doesn’t provide proper FMLA documentation or doesn’t track your FMLA time properly.
Questioning about health instead of accommodating needs: Excessive focus on your health conditions rather than facilitating proper leave and accommodations.
What Should You Do If You Suspect FMLA Violations?
If you believe your FMLA rights have been violated, consider these important steps:
Document everything: Keep copies of all medical documentation, emails with HR, performance reviews, and notes about verbal conversations regarding your leave.
Follow up on FMLA paperwork: Ensure your documentation is properly submitted and follow up if you don’t receive confirmation.
Be aware of your rights: The FMLA provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for qualified medical conditions.
Consult with an employment attorney: If you believe you’ve experienced FMLA interference or retaliation, an experienced employment lawyer can evaluate your case.
How Wanta Thome Employment Lawyers Can Help
Our firm is proud to represent Kimberly Ahmann in this important case that may help protect the rights of other Minnesota employees. The court’s decision denying summary judgment validates the legal merit of our client’s claims and allows her case to proceed toward trial.
If you’ve experienced similar treatment after requesting or taking medical leave, our experienced employment attorneys at Wanta Thome can help you understand your rights and options. We have extensive experience representing employees in FMLA interference and retaliation cases throughout Minnesota.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation and learn how we can help protect your workplace rights.
Note: This case is ongoing, and the court’s denial of summary judgment does not constitute a final determination on the merits of the claims. Ahmann v. Blattner Holding Company, Civil No. 23-2620 (JRT/SGE).