Michael Harris v. Thomas Peterson

**Employee Wins Partial Victory in FMLA Dispute with GEICO** Rachel Davis, a GEICO employee, sued her employer claiming the company violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in two ways: by retaliating against her for taking protected leave and by interfering with her right to use that leave. The court reached a split decision. GEICO won on the retaliation claim, meaning the court found insufficient evidence that the company punished Davis for taking FMLA leave. However, Davis can proceed to trial on her interference claim, where she argues GEICO improperly prevented or discouraged her from using her FMLA rights. This case shows workers that FMLA lawsuits often involve multiple legal theories, and courts evaluate each claim separately. While proving retaliation can be challenging—requiring evidence that an employer took negative action because of FMLA use—interference claims may be easier to establish. These focus on whether an employer's actions made it difficult or impossible for workers to exercise their leave rights. For employees facing FMLA issues, this ruling demonstrates that even if one legal claim fails, others may still succeed, making it important to explore all possible violations when seeking legal remedies.