Prior to filing suit, Sadowski had been employed by the USPS for nine years when he began to experience high blood pressure and insomnia. Sadowski's physician recommend that he apply for twelve weeks of leave under the FMLA. Following his physician's orders, Sadowski requested, and was approved for, FMLA leave. Although, his request for FMLA leave had been approved, Sadowski received notification from the USPS indicating that he was absent from his employment without leave and requiring him to complete additional paperwork. Sadowski alleged that he submitted the additional paperwork, but was nevertheless required by the USPS to appear at a pre-disciplinary interview. Following the interview, the USPS terminated Sadowski's employment. The termination notice was signed by Defendant Walls and Edward Weche.

Upon termination, Sadowski filed suit alleging that the Defendants' actions, in terminating him from his employment with the USPS, violated the FMLA. Specifically, Sadowski alleged that the FMLA entitled him to twelve weeks of leave for his condition and that the Defendants retaliated against him for requesting and attempting to use his leave.

Walls and Weche sought dismissal of Sadowski's Complaint, alleging that, as public employees, they could not be held liable, in their individual capacities, for violations of the FMLA.

The Court stated that the issue of whether public employees could be held liable in their individual capacities for violations of the FMLA was a legal question that centered on the FMLA's definition of "employer." The FMLA defines employer as:

(i) any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar work weeks in the current or preceding calendar year;

(ii) includes –

(I) any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer; and

(II) any successor in interest of an employer;

(iii) includes any "public agency", as defined in section 203(x) of this title; and

(iv) includes the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress.

29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A).

The Court, in reviewing legal authority from jurisdictions throughout the United States and the statutory construction of the FMLA, held that the language of the FMLA prohibits public employees from being found individually liable and dismissed Defendants Walls and Weche from the lawsuit. In support of its holding, the Court explained that the statutory construction of the FMLA shows that Congress intended to keep the four subsections of the FMLA, which add substance to the term "employer," distinct and independent from each other. Specifically, the Court stated that Congress separated 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(ii), which provides for individual liability, from 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(iii), which provides for public agency liability; creating distinct subsections, thereby prohibiting public employees from being held individually liable under the FMLA.