Navigating the employer/employee relationship is becoming increasingly difficult. In the modern age, with constantly evolving expectations in the employer/employee dynamic, there are countless new issues that both parties need to address together. However, one of the oldest and still most challenging issues is what to do when an employee is going through an extended personal crisis. How can an employer be supportive while still maintaining the required value from their employee? During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Melissa Myers faced the unexpected passing of her husband. The ensuing battle with depression caused Ms. Myers to exceed her approved absence allotment by 14.5 days before she was ultimately approved for further leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). When the next school year began, Ms. Myers returned to work, but in just four months, she had already exceeded her approved leave allotment by 6 days. The principal delivered a letter to Ms. Myers stating that there needed to be a drastic improvement in her attendance, or else Ms. Myers would be at risk of termination. The next day, Ms. Myers resigned. She then filed a lawsuit against the principal and the School District claiming that they had interfered with her ability to get further leave under the FMLA, retaliated against her by “constructively discharging” her in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and treated her differently than other employees who exceeded their approved absence allotment in violation of the Equal Protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment for the Defendants on all three claims, and the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision, making it binding on all Illinois district courts. Myers v. Sunman-Dearborn Community Schools et al, No. 22-1966 at *2 (7th Cir. July 1, 2025). In making its decision, the Seventh Circuit first found that it was impossible for the Defendants to have interfered with Ms. Myers’s rights under the FMLA, because Ms. Myers simply was not FMLA eligible. Ms. Myers: (1) had not worked the requisite 1,250 hours in the previous 12-month period; (2) could not show she had sufficient illness to require continuing treatment; and (3) had not given the School District sufficient notice that she was planning on applying for additional FMLA leave. Ms. Myers had attributed her recent absences to an ongoing battle with pneumonia, bronchitis, and strep throat – a decidedly different issue than the emotional battle she was facing in the prior school year. Therefore, the school had no way of knowing if Ms. Myers was considering additional leave under the FMLA.

The Court then turned to Ms. Myers’s ADA claim, where she alleged that the principal’s termination warning acted as a constructive discharge from her position. However, the Court ruled that constructive discharge can only be found in situations where there was serious and persistent harassment, or where the working conditions were so intolerable as to necessitate resignation. In Ms. Myers’s case, the mere prospect of termination fell well short of that standard. The Court also found that Ms. Myers failed to ever get her Equal Protection claim off the ground.

In light of the Court’s findings, employers should try to strike a balance when they have employees facing difficult challenges in their personal lives. Affirmative actions, such as suggesting an employee look into FMLA leave when appropriate, may help to foster a positive relationship between both parties and insulate the employer from future litigation. Employers should also be cognizant of when and how they broach the subject of possible termination with their employees. While employers should feel comfortable noting performance issues, the frequency and urgency with which they do so may support a finding of constructive discharge.

For more information about this article, please contact Tressler Attorney Alex Myers at amyers@tresslerllp.com.

About the Author

Alexander (Alex) Myers serves as an associate in Tressler’s Local Government and Litigation Practice Groups. His practice is primarily focused on civil rights litigation, tort litigation, employment litigation and counseling, and matters arising from section 1983, and police misconduct. Alex has successfully defended his clients through all stages of litigation, and, through that process, has gained valuable litigation skills. Click here to read Alex’s full attorney bio.