The key litigated issue in James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago was whether the employer, Hyatt Regency Chicago (Hyatt), violated the FMLA by granting an employee FMLA leave for an injury and reinstating him to his former position and seniority level after the leave ended, instead of before the FMLA leave was over.

Carris James worked for Hyatt as a banquet steward, a position that required him to lift pots and pans and transport garbage cans around Hyatt's banquet and food-service area. James had some vision problems, which Hyatt accommodated by increasing the print size of his work assignments and schedules.

In March 2007, James injured his eye outside of work and requested FMLA leave to recuperate from the injury and resulting corrective surgery. James initially sent Hyatt a doctor's note on April 24, 2007, stating he could return to light duty on May 10, 2007. However, on April 25th, James requested FMLA leave, which Hyatt granted and applied retroactively to cover James's absence before he submitted his certification form. Although James's 12-week FMLA leave ended on July 13, 2007, the collective bargaining agreement between his union and Hyatt entitled him to remain on job-protected leave for up to one year from his original absence. James returned to work on February 17, 2008 in the same position, shift and seniority level he had before he took leave.

While on leave, James submitted several doctor's notes and certification forms, including:

Hyatt tried to contact James in September and December of 2007 to clarify the doctors' restrictions and conflicting statements about James's health, but James did not clarify his position. On January 15, 2008, Hyatt wrote directly to James's first doctor asking about his condition. The doctor replied that James could return to work but could not complete any tasks that required vision better than 20/200. Hyatt then scheduled a meeting with James to discuss his return, and during the meeting granted James's request for two weeks of paid vacation.

James sued Hyatt in 2009, claiming retaliation and interference with his FMLA rights and discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. Specifically, James claimed that he was left on FMLA leave for too long, as Hyatt failed to promptly return him to work after receiving releases from his doctors. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hyatt and dismissed James's FMLA and ADA claims. The district court also denied James's motion to compel further discovery and imposed Rule 37 sanctions. James appealed all of these orders.

In its February 13, 2013 opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision as to all of James's claims.

James first argued that Hyatt interfered with his FMLA entitlement when it failed to reinstate him after receiving the April 24, 2007 doctor's note that released him to light duty effective May 11, 2007. The court disagreed, noting:

The Seventh Circuit also found that James could not show Hyatt had retaliated against him, because Hyatt took no materially adverse action against him. Failing to reinstate him after he submitted the April 24 note was not a materially adverse employment action, and there was evidence in the record that Hyatt tried to return James to work on several occasions by contacting James and his doctor to clarify his fitness to work.

Finally, the court found that James could not make out a prima facie case of failure to accommodate under the ADA. James argued that by failing to return him to work, Hyatt failed to accommodate his vision problems. However, the court found that James never made Hyatt aware of his disability, and therefore did not start the accommodation process. Hyatt only became aware of the actual state of James's medical condition when it reached out to James's doctor, as James did not respond to any of Hyatt's requests for clarification.

In addition, one of James's doctor's notes restricted from him heavy lifting or excessive bending over, which were two essential functions of his position. Reassigning duties to another employee is not a reasonable accommodation when reassigning the duties means essentially reassigning the job itself.

The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the district court's denial of James's motion to compel and its imposition of Rule 37 sanctions, finding the court did not abuse its discretion.

The plaintiff's novel claim in this case, that despite granting him full FMLA leave and reinstatement his employer interfered with his FMLA rights, serves as a reminder to practitioners that employers may face claims even when they grant FMLA benefits. Counsel should be aware both that such claims exist and that the Seventh Circuit's decision in this case may serve as precedent to dispute them. Employers should also be diligent in investigating and documenting investigations of conflicting medical reports about employees' fitness for work when employees take disability or FMLA leave, as that evidence largely protected the employer from the odd claims in this case.