Henne v. Great River Regional Library
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- motion to dismiss
- State
- Minnesota
- Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Defendant Great River Regional Library prevailed on its motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiff's FMLA interference claim (Count VI) on the grounds that plaintiff failed to allege she took leave in connection with her spouse's serious health condition, failed to allege prejudice, and failed to adequately allege her anxiety and depression constituted FMLA-qualifying serious health conditions.
What This Ruling Means
Henne v. Great River Regional Library: Court Ruling Summary
What Happened
Henne worked at Great River Regional Library and filed a lawsuit claiming the employer failed to accommodate her needs under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She alleged her anxiety and depression qualified as serious health conditions that required workplace protections, and she claimed the library interfered with her rights to take protected leave.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with the library. The judge dismissed part of Henne's case, finding she didn't provide enough information to prove her claims. Specifically, the court found she failed to show she took leave related to her spouse's health condition and didn't adequately explain how her anxiety and depression met the legal requirements for protected leave.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that mental health conditions like anxiety and depression may not automatically qualify for FMLA protection. Workers must provide clear documentation and evidence connecting their leave to a serious health condition. Simply stating you have a mental health condition isn't enough—you need to demonstrate the condition meets specific legal standards for protection under federal leave laws.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.