Prior to 2009, Plaintiff’s arguments would have had merit. However, the 2009 amendment to 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) “explicitly permits employers to condition FMLA-protected leave upon an employee’s compliance with the employer’s usual notice and procedural requirements, absent unusual circumstances.” Srouder, 725 F.3d at 614.
Defendant’s employee handbook required employees to contact the SCI Leave and Disability Center to give notice of any FMLA leave. Plaintiff received, read through, and signed Defendant’s employee handbook acknowledging his familiarity with it. However, Plaintiff never requested FMLA leave or asked anybody at SCI for FMLA leave. Plaintiff did not identify any unusual circumstances that would prevent him from complying with Defendant’s notice requirement for FMLA leave.