October Term 2001 · Docket 00-6029
Does the FMLA require employers to offer intermittent leave options?
The dispute centers on whether employers must provide intermittent leave options under the FMLA.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Sutter argued the FMLA guarantees more than twelve weeks of absence.
He stated the law ensures a specific bundle of statutory rights.
Mr. Sutter claimed the company never offered intermittent work options.
He noted the company form only asked about sick leave needs.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the scope of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 7, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-15
What each side wants
The employee wants the court to mandate intermittent leave options.
The employer wants the court to limit leave to standard blocks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-35
What each side says
The employee argues the FMLA guarantees a specific bundle of rights.
The employer argues the statute does not require intermittent scheduling.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-35
What the justices asked
The Chief Justice asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-15
Why it matters
Employers must decide how to structure medical leave policies. Employees rely on these rules for health needs. The outcome shapes workplace flexibility standards nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-35
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 5-35
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.