Back in 2005, Carl Thom, Jr., a molder at American Standard, Inc. for nearly 36 years, took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a non-work-related shoulder injury that required surgery. Thom requested, and was granted by American Standard, FMLA leave from April 27 to June 27, 2005. Due to a faster-than-expected recovery, Thom's doctor cleared him to return to light duty beginning May 31 with a projected return to unrestricted work on June 13. However, Thom was sent home by American Standard because "the company did not permit employees with non-work-related injuries to perform light duty work temporarily after FMLA leave."

American Standard contacted Thom on June 14 when he did not return to work on the 13th. The plaintiff explained that he was experiencing increased pain and would return to work on his original June 27 deadline. He delivered a note from his doctor on June 18th that explained his condition. He was then informed that each day from June 13-17 was an unexcused absence for which his employment was terminated.

There are four methods under the FMLA by which an employer may calculate FMLA leave. One is the "calendar" method, which provides an employee with 12 work weeks of leave per calendar year. American Standard holds that it used a "rolling" method of calculation, which calculates FMLA leave "backward from the date an employee uses any FMLA leave." The company contends that, as such, the plaintiff's leave was exhausted before he was fired. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgement in favor of the plaintiff on his FMLA interference claim and awarded him $99,960 in attorney's fees, $2,732 in costs, and $104,354 in back pay.

On appeal, the company contended it has the right to choose the method of calculation and that the method should be imputed to the plaintiff because the union that represented him was aware of the calculation method. The appellate court found no merit in American Standard's argument and sided with the plaintiff, saying that "employers should inform their employees in writing of which method they will use to calculate the FMLA leave year." The court further granted the plaintiff liquidated damages as the company failed to prove that it acted acted both reasonably and in good faith. The court noted that there is "a strong presumption in favor of awarding liquidated damages that are double the amount of any compensatory damages."