Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM DAVIS, District Judge. Plaintiff, Gary Peeples, instituted this case pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), against his former employer, Coastal Office Products, Incorporated. Now pending are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and Peeples’s motion for recusal. The parties’ contentions are fully set forth and supported in the memoranda and exhibits accompanying their motions and no oral hearing is required. As explained herein, Peeples’s FMLA claim fails because he did not provide adequate and timely notice to defendant of his need for, and the likely duration of, sick leave, as required by Department of Labor regulations implementing the statute; therefore, he did not trigger defendant’s obligations and duties under the FMLA, and the termination of his employment was not violative of the FMLA. Peeples’s ADA failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims fail because, as a matter of law: (1) Peeples was not actually disabled within the ADA; (2) no reasonable juror could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that he was “regarded as” disabled by defendant; and, (3) no reasonable juror could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the termination of his employment was proximately caused by Peeples’s “invocation” of his rights under the ADA. Accordingly, Peeples’s motions shall be denied and defendant’s motion shall be granted. I. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material for purposes of summary judgment, if when applied to the substantive law, it affects the outcome of the litigation. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Summary judgment is also appropriate when a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49,106 S.Ct. 2505. “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in [Rule 56], an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir.1991). Of course, the facts, as well as justifiable inferences to be drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indust. Co v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The court, however, has an affirmative obligation to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial. Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th Cir.1987). II. I shall set forth the evidence in the light most favorable to Peeples. Coastal provides professional services in connection with, and maintains and repairs, computer hardware and software for a variety of businesses and individuals. Aff. of Harold Clasing ¶ 3. Coastal was incorporated in 1987 by Bruce and Harold Clasing, who operate the company as President and Chief Operating Officer (“COO”), respectively. Id. ¶ 2. At all times relevant to this matter, defendant’s Human Resources Director was Kimberly Hock (“Hock”), Ajf. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 3, and Peeples’s immediate supervisor was Matt Ziskind (“Ziskind”). Ajf. of Matt Ziskind ¶ 2. As a small company with an expanding client base, defendant did not employ 50 people, and thereby come within the ambit of some of the federal anti-discrimination statutes, until 1999. Ajf. of Harold Clas-ing ¶4. Defendant displays the required notices of employee rights in its workplace, including an FMLA poster and an EEO poster. The EEO poster describes employee rights under the ADA. Def. ’s Ex. 6 (EEO/FMLA posters). At all times relevant to this matter, these notices were located in a well-traveled common area of the office. Ajf. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 4. Although Peeples claimed he had no recollection of the FMLA poster, he did recall that various employee notices regarding “wage and hours” were posted by the company. Dep. of Peeples at 81. Peeples began his employment with Coastal as a service technician in April 1995. Dep. of Peeples at 73. Ziskind was then the Hardware Services Manager. Id. at 74. Hardware Services is defendant’s largest and busiest department. The Hardware Services Manager supervises service technicians and coordinates daily “crisis” calls from customers who are having computer problems. Ajf. of Matt Zis-kind ¶3. Ziskind held this position for a number of years. It is not disputed that the stress attending the position of Hardware Services Manager is extremely high. Id. As a service technician, Peeples would visit customers to repair computers and printers. Dep. of Peeples at 73. Over the years, Peeples had received highly favorable performance evaluations from Zis-kind, Def.’s Ex. 7 (Peeples’s Performance Evaluations, most categories rated “excellent” and the remainder “above average”), and there is no evidence in the record that their relationship was anything other than entirely positive. In August 1999, Peeples was promoted to Hardware Technician/Assistant to the Manager of Hardware Services. Dep. of Peeples at 74; Def.’s Ex. 8 (Promotion Letter to Peeples, dated August 19,1999). Thereafter, in late January 2000, Ziskind was promoted to Director of the Service Department, and Peeples applied for the job of Hardware Services Manager. Dep. of Peeples at 87. Following interviews with Ziskind and Bruce Clasing, Peeples was offered and accepted the job. Id.; Def.’s Ex. 9 (Promotion Letter to Peeples, dated January 27, 2000). Peeples’s promotion involved a substantial pay increase. Peeples fully understood, as defendant wrote in appointing him as Hardware Services Manager, “it is anticipated that the duties of [Hardware Services Manager] ... extend beyond the normal 40-hour work week.” Def.’s Ex. 9. The duties of the position included “assistance in strategic planning for the hardware services department, overall management of the hardware services department, product evaluation, responsibility for profitability of hardware services department, maintaining ... service authorizations, hiring/training employees,” id., as well as “supervising six to eight employees; disciplining employees, preparing employee job evaluations; arranging and conducting team meetings for subordinates; approving employees’ time sheets, leave requests, and expense reports; resolving customer complaints; and addressing warranty-related issues.” Aff. of Peeples ¶ 3. Peeples was fully aware of the demands of his new job; Peeples had witnessed Ziskind in the position and he knew the job would be stressful and would require more than 40 hours a week to carry out his responsibilities. However, at the time he assumed the position, he did not anticipate that he would have any difficulty handling these requirements. Dep. of Peeples at 88, 90-91. Sadly, Peeples quickly discovered that he could not handle the severe stress the job entailed. Specifically, soon after Pee-ples started work in the new position during the first week of February 2000, he found that he was unable to keep up with his workload. Id. at 92. He sought advice from Ziskind, who told him, perhaps unhelpfully, to “tackle one task at a time and, you know, not try to do everything at once.” Id. Peeples’s incessant feelings that he was overwhelmed by his duties did not abate. Id. Peeples again complained to Ziskind about his workload and asked him for advice. Id. When Ziskind explained that Peeples was expected to do the job that he was appointed to do, Pee-ples felt “betrayed” as Ziskind was not giving him the type of support that Pee-pies felt he was told he would receive. Id. at 92-93. (Ziskind was busy handling the obligations of his new position, and while he was willing to give Peeples direction, he did not intend to do the job for him. Aff. of Matt Ziskind ¶ 4.) Peeples confessed on deposition that it was possible that working longer hours would have helped him to gain a better grasp of his new position and to better handle his workload. Nevertheless, he thought that the nine-hour days that he was working should have been sufficient. Dep. of Peeples at 94-97. Peeples was simply unwilling to work longer hours. Id. On the morning of March 10, 2000, Harold Clasing spoke to Peeples about a client matter. During this conversation, Peeples also discussed his job situation. Although defendant describes Peeples’s assertions during this conversation as “complaints” about his workload, while Peeples characterizes his assertions as “simply asking Clasing for the advice and support that had been promised [him],” Aff. of Peeples ¶ 21, this is merely one of many immaterial disputes of fact on which Pee-ples seeks to rely to avoid summary judgment. What is not disputed is that Clas-ing responded to Peeples as follows: “[W]hen you’re in management, you need to work additional hours.” Dep. of Peeples at 93. Although, as discussed infra, Pee-ples takes patently contradictory positions on the issue of whether he wanted to relinquish the manager position, his deposition testimony makes clear that he felt (without any justification apparent in the record) if he admitted to defendant that the manager position was too much for him, he did not believe, on March 10, 2000, he had the option of returning to his former position, even though the position had not been filled (this was, after all, one of Peeples’s complaints, that he had only one assistant manager). Id. at 98. In any event, when Peeples returned from lunch on March 10, 2000, he told Ziskind that he was “sick” (or, as Peeples contends more specifically, that he was experiencing light-headedness and chest pains) and that he was going home. Id. Ziskind responded that his leaving was “okay” and thus Peeples left for the day. Id.; Aff of Matt Ziskind ¶ 5. Peeples attests that he was experiencing light-headedness, anxiety, chest pains, and feelings of depression, and he refers to this March 10, 2000, episode as a “breakdown,” Aff. of Peeples ¶¶ 5, 16, although none of his medical doctors use this term to describe their assessment of the March 10, 2000, episode. On his way home from work, Peeples contemplated running his car off the road “as a means of getting time off of work.” Dep. of Peeples at 99. In other words, as he admitted on deposition, Peeples thought of running his car off the road as a method of obtaining sick leave. Id. at 108. When he got home, Peeples was emotionally overwrought; he began to cry and shake uncontrollably out of concern for his job and the work that he was required to do. Id. (Coincidentally, just a few weeks before March 10, 2000, defendant had announced a generous sick leave policy. The policy provided employees with up to three months leave at full salary if they could not come to work due to a legitimate medical condition. Def’s Ex. 10 (Sick Leave Policy Announcement, March 2000). An employee who took sick leave was required to cooperate with defendant to ensure that defendant was supplied with medical confirmation that the employee had a “verifiable medical condition or short-term disability” and would be able to return to work. Aff. of Harold Clasing ¶ 5.) Peeples’s primary care physician is Dr. Randi Braman. Peeples had been seeing Dr. Braman for five years, and most recently, in particular, for sleep apnea. Dep. of Peeples at 101-08. Peeples does not contend that his sleep problems are at issue in this case. Id. at 103-04. On March 6, 2000, four days before he left work because he felt ill, Peeples had seen Dr. Braman for complaints of trouble sleeping and “ringing in ears.” Def’s Ex. 11 (Dr. Braman’s Medical Notes, March 6, 2000). She had prescribed Zoloft, an antidepressant, in lieu of Ritalin, which he had been taking. Aff. of Dr. Randi Braman ¶ 4; Def’s Ex. 11. She had been concerned that Peeples was showing signs of depression. Id. Nevertheless, according Dr. Braman’s notes from March 6, 2000, on that date Peeples had no depressive symptoms except “irritability with stress at work,” and he had no problems with concentration, appetite, or emotional stability. Def’s Ex. 11. When Peeples arrived home early from work on March 10, 2000, he called Dr. Braman. When Peeples told her that he had considered running his car off the road, she ordered him to go immediately to a hospital emergency room, Dep. of Pee-ples at 100, based on her perception of his “suicidal ideation,” notwithstanding that he also stated that “he had no plans to harm himself.” Aff. of Dr. Randi Braman ¶ 5. Peeples went immediately to the emergency room at Carroll County General Hospital. The psychiatric staff on duty (one of whom apparently spoke by telephone with Dr. Braman while Peeples was at the hospital) diagnosed Peeples with “depression DO NOS,” i.e., “Depressive Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified.” Def.’s Ex. 13 (Carroll County General Hospital Medical Records). Essentially, this diagnosis means that while Peeples presented symptoms of being depressed, the doctor could not conclude “whether it is primary, due to a general medical condition or substance induced.” Def.’s Ex/12 (DSM-IV-TR 311 Criteria). The doctor and a psychiatric nurse practitioner who saw Peeples both noted that he smokes marijuana (apparently twice a week), something which Peeples confirmed in his deposition. Def.’s Ex. 13; PL’s Ex. 33 (Psychiatric Treatment Notes of March 23, 2000); Dep. of Peeples at 111. Peeples was not admitted to the hospital. He was instructed to follow up with his primary care physician and that he should not return to work for a week. The strength of his Zoloft prescription was increased, and he was to begin taking Trazo-done, another anti-depressant. Id. The following Monday, March 13, 2000, Peeples called Ziskind and told him that he was sick and was unable to come to work. Peeples told Ziskind that he was hoping to return to work, but that he “could not guarantee anything” and he would not have firm information before he met with Dr. Braman on March 17, 2000. Id. at 113-14. During this conversation, Peeples does not recall mentioning any diagnosis or medical condition of any type, except Ms inability to stop shaking. Id. at 126-27. According to Peeples, Ziskind responded to him as follows: “What’s the matter, can’t you cut it?” Id. Ziskind recalls that Peeples told him that he was sick and could not return to work before he saw his doctor later that week. ZisMnd told Pee-ples to send in a doctor’s note, which Pee-ples did. Ajf. of Matt Ziskind ¶ 6. The work excuse (from the emergency room) simply states that Peeples’s return date was to be determined by his primary care physician, but that as for “restrictions,” Peeples had “none.” Def.’s Ex. 14 (Work Excuse, March 10, 2000). Although Pee-ples’s discharge instructions contained more information, he did not fax that document to Ziskind. On March 17, 2000, Peeples saw Dr. Braman in her office. According to Dr. Braman’s notes, Peeples was still “very anxious and paranoid.” Def.’s Ex. 16. Peeples allegedly expressed to her a desire to go back to work within three days, but he was uncertain as to whether he could handle the stress of his job. Id. Dr. Bra-man decided that Peeples was unable to return to work until after he was evaluated, once again, on March 27, 2000. Id. Dr. Braman also increased his dosage of Zoloft. That same day, Dr. Braman faxed Ziskind a “Sick Slip” on behalf of Peeples that stated that Peeples “needs follow-up appointments [and] medication adjustment — not yet ready to resume work.” Def.’s Ex. 15 (Sick Slip, March 17, 2000). Peeples then spoke to Ziskind that same day, telling him that he needed time off and his medication needed adjustment. Peeples does not recall explaining anything further, Dep. of Peeples at 156-57, and the record is clear that in fact he did not offer Ziskind any further explanation of his circumstances. On Wednesday, March 22, 2000, Peeples had been off work for ten days and Zis-kind, who had been covering Peeples’s responsibilities, spoke to him and inquired as to how he was doing. Aff. of Matt Ziskind ¶ 8. Peeples told Ziskind that his status was unclear and he would not have further information before he saw another doctor. Id. Specifically, although Peeples knew on March 22, 2000, that he had an appointment to see a psychiatrist the next day (March 23, 2000) upon the referral of Dr. Braman, he told Ziskind that he “wouldn’t know [when he might return to work] until I go see the thyroid doctor .... ” Dep. of Peeples at 125. (Although unrelated to his absence from work, Peeples had been referred to an endocrinologist by Dr. Braman, despite the fact that Peeples had learned as early as March 18, 2000, that his tests for thyroid malfunction had essentially been within normal limits. Peeples had a precautionary office visit on April 4, 2000, during which the endocrinologist elected to rerun certain tests. Those tests, and a further reevaluation on May 30, 2000, reconfirmed what was already known, namely, that Peeples had normal thyroid function. Def.’s Ex. 17, (Endocrinologist Notes, April 4, 2000 and May 30, 2000).) In the meantime, as mentioned above, on Dr. Braman’s referral, Peeples consulted a psychiatrist, Dr. Eduardo de la Cruz, on March 23, 2000. Def.’s Ex. 18 (Dr. de la Cruz’s Medical Notes, March 23, 2000). Dr. de la Cruz concluded, after a psychiatric evaluation of Peeples, that Peeples had suffered from “a single episode” of “major depression” having “moderate severity.” Id. He remarked that Peeples had likely been suffering from subclinical or prodronal symptoms, e.g., difficulty sleeping, lack of energy, and feelings of unhappiness, for about two years. Id. He concluded further that Peeples’s recent symptoms were triggered by the pressures of his new position at work. Id. Dr. de la Cruz prescribed that Peeples should stay on Zoloft, increase his Trazodone dose, and take sick leave for “about two [to] three weeks.” Id. (Dr. de la Cruz’s notes do not make clear whether Dr. de la Cruz believed that the “two [to] three weeks” off work should run from March 10, 2000, the day of Peeples’s “breakdown,” or from March 23, 2000, the day of Peeples’s visit with Dr. de la Cruz; in Dr. de la Cruz’s affidavit, Pl.’s Ex. 33, he asserts that it was his intention that the three weeks should commence from March 23, 2000.) Peeples believed that Dr. de la Cruz’s instructions meant that he was entitled to two or three weeks leave counting from the date of his visit with Dr. de la Cruz, because this would provide time for the medication to work. (Dr. de la Cruz had increased his dosage of Trazodone.) Dep. of Peeples at 121-22. As detailed infra, no one at Coastal ever learned that Dr. de la Cruz was treating Peeples for major depression at any time before this litigation began. On Monday, March 27, 2000, Peeples again visited Dr. Braman; she determined that Peeples should remain off work until at least April 12, 2000, when she would again reevaluate Peeples. Aff. of Dr. Randi Braman ¶ 8. Dr. Braman provided Pee-ples with a sick slip, which was faxed to defendant, and which stated, without further explanation, that Peeples “may not return to work until reevaluation on April 12, 2000.” Def.’s Ex. 19 (Sick Slip from Dr. Braman, March 27, 2000); Aff. of Pee-ples ¶ 12. Ziskind spoke to Peeples after he rer ceived the sick slip. During this conversation, Peeples told Ziskind he needed two to three weeks off from work. Dep. of Pee-ples at 158. Peeples claims a lack of recollection as to whether he told Ziskind that he was unable to return to work just yet due to depression and anxiety. At this point, Peeples had been off work from March 10, 2000, through March 27, 2000, and he had provided virtually no information about his circumstances; Ziskind was concerned. From Ziskind’s perspective, if Peeples needed the remainder of his third week off, Ziskind would continue “to pick up the slack in his absence and continue to perform” Ziskind’s own work, as well. Aff. of Matt Ziskind ¶ 9. However, if Peeples was going to be absent longer, Ziskind would need to find alternative coverage for Peeples’s position. Id. As a result of this uncertainty, Ziskind consulted Hock, the Director of Human Resources. Id. ¶ 10. Hock then decided to contact Peeples “to get some understanding of the situation.” Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 5. On Thursday, March 30, 2000, Hock spoke to Peeples by telephone to determine whether he would be able to attend the annual staff meeting that afternoon. Id. ¶ 6. Peeples stated that he would not attend. Id. Hock asked Peeples the extent of his restrictions, and whether he could do other work for defendant such as painting its new building next door. Dep. of Pee-ples at 44. Peeples told Hock that he did not know when he would be able to return to work, that he would know more after meeting Dr. Braman in two weeks (on April 12, 2000), Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 6, and that he could do nothing related to his job; indeed, he could not even drive long distances, i.e., he could not drive to the workplace from his home. Def.’s Ex. 20 (Hock’s Notes of Conversation with Pee-ples, March 30, 2000). According to Hock, Peeples also stated that he was “leaning toward” not being a manager, Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 6. Although in his post deposition affidavit Peeples denies that he made such a statement to Hock, Aff. of Peeples ¶ 23, in his deposition, Peeples plainly and unequivocally admitted that he had made the statement attributed to him, i.e., that he was “leaning toward not to return as the manager.” Peeples’s Dep. at 163. Hock told Peeples “that the company had to make business decisions related to the manager’s position, and that it was possible that Coastal would advertise for a Hardware Services Manager position.” Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 6. Hock ended the conversation by asking Peeples to keep her informed regarding his condition and status. Id. Peeples believes that this phone call from Hock constitutes harassment and evidences defendant’s discriminatory intent to deprive him of his federally-guaranteed rights, specifically, that Hock was “taking advantage of his state of mind.” Dep. of Peeples at 43-46. Peeples apparently felt that Hock should have known of his delicate condition from the sound of his voice. Id. at 166. It is clear as a matter of undisputed fact, however, that Hock did not understand that Peeples was suffering from major or clinical depression, or any other mental or emotional disorder likely to put defendant on notice of the existence of a “serious medical condition,” but rather, that she thought Pee-ples was unable to attend work due to a thyroid problem. De/’sEx. 20. On March 31, 2000, the day after he spoke to Hock, Peeples e-mailed defendant’s President, Bruce Clasing. Def.’s Ex. 21. This e-mail is central to several of the subsidiary issues in this case; accordingly, it is set forth verbatim: Hi Bruce, I’m writing you to find out if you plan to run an ad for the Service Manager position and if so where does that leave me as far as employment goes? I talked to Kim Hock yesterday and she didn’t know. She also kept asking when I would be returning to work. I told her that I will be reevaluated on 4/12 and would update Coastal at that time. She also wanted to know if I felt that I would be able to return to the manager’s position. I am unable to predict the future. I will know better after reevaluation by my doctor. I hope to fully recover and be able to perform any job. Like I told Kim I am out for an illness an [sic] do not want to lose my job because of illness and it is my understanding that I am protected by the A.D.A. This phone conversation with Kim was very stressful for me and I would prefer to communicate via email at present. Please reply as soon as possible. Thanks, Gary. Id. (emphasis added). Several critical facts are established as undisputed on the basis of this document authored by Pee-ples and the summary judgment record as a whole. First, it is clear that Peeples would not disclose the true nature and etiology of his ailment; to the contrary, he would, essentially, repeatedly limit his disclosures to defendant to the naked assertion that he was “out for an illness.” Id.; see also Proposed Pretrial Order at ¶¶ 4, 5 (Stipulations by the parties that Peeples reported that he was “sick”). Second, it is clear that he was unwilling to discuss in a rational manner his prospective return to work, even though, according to Dr. de la Cruz, he needed only three weeks off (effective as of March 23, 2000), thus two more weeks from March 31, 2000, the date of the e-mail. Finally, it is clear that he wanted no contact at all from defendant while he was off work and was offended by any efforts to contact him, which he perceived as “constant interference.” Dep. of Peeples at 26, 43-44. Prior to Peeples’s March 30, 2000, conversation with Hock and prior to the March 31, 2000, e-mail to Clasing set forth above, Ziskind had e-mailed Peeples, on March 27, 2000, asking whether he. could do some work on-line from his' home computer during his absence from work. Def.’s Ex. 22 (Ziskind’s e-mails to Peeples, March 27, 2000). Having heard nothing from Peeples for an entire week, Ziskind sent a follow-up e-mail on Monday April 3, 2000. Def.’s Ex. 23 (Ziskind’s e-mails to Peeples, April 3, 2000). Despite the fact that Peeples was a member of management, and notwithstanding the fact that Ziskind had been told that Peeples had “no restrictions” (as reported in the work excuse from the emergency room Ziskind received on March 13, 2000), Peeples considered these communications an inappropriate intrusion on his time away from work. Dep. of Peeples at 153-54. Peeples responded to Ziskind’s April 3, 2000, email by stating that, although he had attempted some of the on-line tasks suggested by Ziskind, he simply could not work from home. He reported that he had upcoming appointments with a “sleep specialist” and “thyroid specialist.” Def.’s Ex. 24 (Peeples’s e-mail to Ziskind). Peeples also reiterated that he would not know when he could return to work before he saw Dr. Braman on April 12, 2000. Id. On Sunday, April 2, 2000, defendant had run a newspaper advertisement for the hardware manager position, just as Hock had contemplated might be done in her March 30, 2000, conversation with Peeples. Thus, in his response to Ziskind’s April 3, 2000, e-mail, Peeples, having observed the advertisement in the Sunday paper, mentioned it to Ziskind and wrote: “Where does this leave me as far as employment goes?” Id. Ziskind replied (by return email): “That’s what we are trying to find out from you.” Id. Peeples considered this response from Ziskind to be no response at all. Dep. of Peeples at 183. Peeples conceded in deposition, however, that he knew he could have returned to the manager’s position even after the advertisement had been placed, id. at 182; in other words, it is undisputed in the record that defendant ran the newspaper advertisement as a reasonable prophylactic step in the event Peeples was not able to continue in the position. Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 7. Defendant’s COO, Harold Clasing, was asked to respond to the e-mail inquiry from Peeples regarding his “employment status” and to reach some understanding of the reasons for Peeples’s absence. Aff. of Harold Clasing ¶ 6. Additionally, because Peeples’s e-mail to Bruce Clasing mentioned the ADA, defendant consulted legal counsel. Id. ¶ 7. After consulting counsel, Harold Clasing decided that a conversation with Peeples’s doctor might shed some light on the situation, assuming Peeples consented. Id. Abiding Peeples’s request to communicate only by e-mail, Harold Clasing requested via e-mail a conference call with Peeples and Dr. Braman. Def.’s Ex. 26 (Harold Clasing’s e-mail requesting a conference call, April 3, 2000). Remarkably, Peeples declined to be involved in a conference call, but he gave Harold Clasing permission to speak to Dr. Braman. Dep. of Peeples at 171. Harold Clasing spoke to Dr. Braman on April 4, 2000. Aff. of Harold Clasing ¶ 8. According to Dr. Braman’s notes, she told Harold Clasing that she had been seeing Peeples for “agitation, insomnia, anxiety and some [symptoms] of depression.” Def.’s Ex. 16. Dr. Braman also told Clas-ing that Peeples’s condition may be related to an underlying medical condition, his thyroid, and asked Harold Clasing not to contact Peeples again until after his next appointment on April 12, 2000. Id. According to Harold Clasing, when he asked Dr. Braman “if there were any general or specific restrictions on Peeples’s ability to work, ... [s]he said that there were none, but that Peeples could not work at Coastal.” Aff. of Harold Clasing ¶8 (emphasis added). In her affidavit submitted by Pee-ples as an exhibit to his opposition memorandum, although Dr. Braman does not deny Harold Clasing’s’s version of this part of their conversation, she offers the following alternative restatement of that portion of the conversation: I indicated to Mr. Clasing that Mr. Pee-ples’ condition did not present general or specific physical limitations, but I also communicated to him that Mr. Peeples’ mental condition rendered him unable to work. Ajf. of Randi Braman, D.O. ¶ 9 (emphases added). As a result of his discussion with Dr. Braman and, specifically, the instruction that he was not to contact Peeples, after again consulting legal counsel, Harold Clasing determined that Peeples had abandoned his job and that there was no likelihood of his returning to work at Coastal. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Defendant informed Peeples of his termination on April 5, 2000, by e-mail and by letter from Harold Clasing. Def.’s 27. Clasing stated: I have, with your permission, consulted your physician concerning your absence from work. She has concluded that, while you have no general or specific restriction on your activities, you cannot perform your job with the Company. Moreover, you have stated to Kim Hock, that you are, leaning towards not seeing yourself returning to a management position at Coastal. Because you cannot perform your job now, and there is no prognosis that you ever could return to the Service Manager job, we are removing you from the payroll effective immediately. You will receive, under separate cover, information concerning any COBRA or other benefits for which you are eligible. I will also mail you a copy of this notice on Company letterhead. If you have any questions you can contact me via any means that you are comfortable with. Id. (emphasis added). Neither Peeples nor anyone acting on his behalf ever contacted Harold Clasing. Peeples agreed on deposition that defendant’s decision to end his employment was motivated by a sincere belief that he would not return to work at Coastal. Dep. of Peeples at 189. On April 12, 2000, Peeples visited Dr. Braman. According to Dr. Braman, Pee-ples’s anxiety and depression had worsened significantly since his last visit. Ajf. of Dr. Randi Braman ¶ 10. According to her notes, in consequence of acute anxiety and depression, Peeples was incapacitated from performing any work until at least May 10, 2000. Id.; Def.’s Ex. 30 (Dr. Bramaris Medical notes, April 12, 2000). Peeples has submitted an affidavit executed by a Coastal service technician, Michael Stiegler. Stiegler attests that in April 2000, Swadesh Guchhait, Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region for Coastal, told Stiegler that Harold and Bruce Clasing had told Guchhait that the reason for Pee-ples’s termination was that Peeples had sent them a threatening e-mail. Aff. of Michael Stiegler ¶ 4. Apparently, Peeples asserts that the e-mail in which he states his understanding that he is “protected by the A.D.A.” is the “threatening e-mail” that is the subject of the Stiegler Affidavit. In any event, Guchhait denies that either Clasing told him that Peeples was fired for sending a threatening e-mail. Aff. of Swadesh Guchhait ¶ 3. Moreover, Harold Clasing and Hock deny that Peeples was terminated because he exercised any rights protected by the ADA or the FMLA. Aff. of Harold Clasing ¶ 13; Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 9. On April 25, 2000, Peeples filed a charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Def.’s Ex. 28 (Charge of Discrimination Filed with EEOC). The Charge of Discrimination states: I have been employed with [Coastal] since April 24, 1995. I held the position of Service Manager. I have a disability and I am on medical leave. I have been subjected to harassment by my supervisor. On March 31, 2000, I complained about the harassment. On April 5, 2000, I was terminated from my position. The reason given for being terminated from my position was because my doctor could not release me soon enough. I believe I have been discriminated against due to my disability in violation of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, with regards to harassment and discharge. Id. Peeples also filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor alleging that defendant failed to provide him with FMLA leave. Dep. of Peeples at 190-91. Peeples met with Dr. Braman on May 10, June 14, and August 1, 2000. Def.’s Ex. 30. On each occasion, she determined that Peeples could not be released to return to work of any sort. Id. Finally, on September 12, 2000, Dr. Braman certified that Peeples could return to work without restrictions effective on September 18, 2000. Id. III. Count one of the Complaint asserts a claim for violation of the FMLA. In typical pleading fashion for such claims, the Complaint frames the violation of the FMLA in the following conclusory manner: defendant failed to “provide plaintiff with FMLA leave, terminated plaintiff because he required and/or took FMLA qualifying leave, interfered with, restrained, and denied the exercise of plaintiffs FMLA rights, and otherwise violated plaintiffs FMLA rights.” Complaint ¶ 19. As more concretely framed in the summary judgment record, however, it is clear that the sole FMLA claim is the claim that Peeples was terminated because he took leave to which he was lawfully entitled under the FMLA. Mem. of PI. in Support of Mot. for Sum. J. and in Opp. to Def’s Mot. for Sum. J. at 13-20 (hereinafter Pl.’s Opp.); see also Proposed Pretrial Order at 1. Thus, the claim in count one is a wrongful discharge claim under FMLA. Under the FMLA, “an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period ... [bjecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 2612(D). An employee who takes such leave is entitled, on return from leave, “to be restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced; or to be restored to an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.” Id. § 2614(a)(l)(A-B). An employer is prohibited from interfering with an employee’s exercise of his or her FMLA rights. Id. § 2615(a)(1). Indisputably, if an employer terminates the employment of an employee for taking leave covered by the statute, there has been a violation. Defendant argues that Peeples did not suffer from a “serious health condition.” A “serious health condition” “means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves ... inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility; or continuing treatment by a health care provider.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(11) (emphasis added). I presume, for purposes of the FMLA claim, that Peeples suffered from a “serious health condition,” namely, clinical depression, see Collins v. NTN-Bower Corp., 272 F.3d 1006, 1008 (7th Cir.2001) (noting that “clinical depression” “certainly” constitutes a “serious health condition”), for which he was under the “continuing treatment by a health care provider.” Thus, if Peeples otherwise complied with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, his entitlement to the substantive protections of the FMLA seem beyond dispute. Before an employer’s duty to provide leave, restoration rights and other statutory benefits to employees under the FMLA is triggered, the employee must provide “adequate and timely” notice of the need for, duration and the justification for covered leave. See Carter v. Ford Motor Co., 121 F.3d 1146, 1149 (8th Cir. 1997). To this end, the FMLA presupposes that employers and employees will cooperate and exchange information. Where an unforeseen need for leave arises, as in the case sub judice, employers are to first obtain this information “through informal means,” and “the employee or [employee’s] spokesperson will be expected to provide more information when it can readily be accomplished as a practical matter, taking into consideration the exigencies of the situation. ” See 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b)(emphases added). This obligation of the employee to provide adequate and timely notice of leave the need for which is unforeseen shall hereinafter be referred to as “ § 303(b) notice.” Under the regulations, in contrast to the ability of an employer to enforce an employee’s obligation to provide adequate and timely notice in respect to a foreseeable need for leave, enforcement of the requirement of notice in respect to an unforeseeable need for leave (i.e., § 303(b) notice) is not conditioned upon a showing that “the employee has actual notice of the FMLA notice requirements,” 29 C.F.R. § 825.304(c), through the employer’s posting of a notice of FMLA rights in the workplace. See Satterfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 973, 983 (5th Cir. 1998); Gay v. Gilman Paper Co., 125 F.3d 1432, 1436 n. 6 (11th Cir.1997). In any event, the undisputed facts of this case show that defendant’s workplace was appropriately posted with advice as to FMLA rights. The regulations do not specify the appropriate content of an adequate and timely § 303(b) notice, beyond the general requirement that the employer should proceed on an “informal” basis and the specific admonishment that “the employee or [employee’s] spokesperson will be expected to provide more infomation when it can readily be accomplished as a practical matter, taking into consideration the exigencies of the situation.” Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit has recently held that the “substance and other particulars of [a § 303(b) notice] must conform to § 825.302 (relating to notice of a need for leave that is foreseeable), and only the timing of its delivery is affected by § 825.303.” Collins, 272 F.3d at 1008 (citing Satterfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 973 (5th Cir.1998)). Collins is instructive. There, the Seventh Circuit examined whether the plaintiff-employee complied with the requirement that she notify her employer of the need for FMLA leave. The court first assumed that the plaintiffs depression was clinical depression and thus constituted a “serious health condition.” Id. at 1008. The court then determined that the plaintiff did not adequately notify her employer of her condition, which the court held is a critical FMLA requirement even for an emergency leave of absence. Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b)). The employee had not stated that she was suffering from depression but only that she was “sick.” Id. The court explained that a report that an employee is “‘sick’ does not imply ‘a serious health condition.’ ” Id. The court expounded: The regulation allows notice to be delayed a day or two (an emergency may interfere with giving notice as well as with working), but [the plaintiff] took much longer to let her employer know why she did not show up. Although workers need not expressly assert rights under the FMLA, see § 825.303(b)' — ■ firms should be able to figure out for themselves the legal rules governing leave, once they know that a serious medical condition or family situation is ongoing ... — employers still are entitled to the sort of notice that will inform them not only that the FMLA may apply but also when a given employee will return to work.... Id. (emphasis added). In addition to an employer’s entitlement, indeed, its duty, to obtain (informally) information concerning the need and justification for covered leave in response to an employee’s satisfaction of his or her antecedent, reciprocal duty to provide an adequate and timely § 303(b) notice of the need for covered leave, an employer has the further right to obtain a formal “medical certification” under prescribed procedures. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.305. Significantly, although mere “posting” in the work site of a notice of FMLA rights will create a presumption that the employee had “actual notice” of his or her obligation to provide an adequate and timely § 303(b) notice (assuming, contrary to the holding of Satterfield, that posting is required at all), specific notice of the employer’s desire for, and of the consequences of a failure timely to provide, a medical certification, is required before an employer may penalize an employee for failing to provide a medical certification. Id. at §§ 825.305, 825.306. It is easy to see why an employer might not wish to resort to the medical certification procedure, particularly for a management level employee whose maturity and judgment might not be thought to require such verification. Thus, the availability of an informal mechanism to verify the legitimacy of FMLA leave is not a trivial matter. This is made clear by a consideration of the Department of Labor’s prototype medical certification form, the WH-380. See 29 C.F.R.. Pt. 825, App. A. Here are the substantive questions on the WH-380: ! Describe the medical facts which support your certification, including a brief statement as to how the medical facts meet the criteria of one of these categories. ! State the approximate date the condition commenced, and the probable duration of the condition (and also the probable duration of the patient’s present incapacity if different). ! Will it be necessary for the employee to take work only intermittently or to work on a less than full schedule as a result of the condition (including for treatment described in Item 6 below)? If yes, give the probable duration. ! If additional treatments will be required for the condition, provide an estimate of the probable number of such treatments. ! If the patient will be absent from work or other daily activities because of treatment on an intermittent or part-time basis, also provide an estimate of the probable number and interval between such treatments, actual or estimated dates of treatment if known, and period required for recovery if any. ! If any of these treatments will be provided by another provider of health services (e.g., physical therapist), please state the nature of the treatments. ! If a regimen of continuing treatment by the patient is required under your supervision, provide a general description of such regimen (e.g., prescription drugs, physical therapy requiring special equipment). ! If medical leave is required for the employee’s absence from work because of the employee’s own condition (including absences due to pregnancy or a chronic condition), is the employee unable to perform work of any kind? ! If able to perform some work, is the employee unable to perform any one or more of the essential functions of the employee’s job (the employee or the employer should supply you with information about the essential job functions)? If yes, please list the essential functions the employee is unable to perform. ! If neither [of the two scenarios immediately above] applies, is it necessary for the employee to be absent from work for treatment? ! If the patient will need care only intermittently or on a part-time basis, please indicate the probable duration of this need. See id. at § 825.306. As can be readily seen, it would redound to the benefit of both employer and employee (and certainly beleaguered health care professionals flooded with paperwork) to avoid resort to the formal certification process whenever it is possible to do so. No doubt, this consideration animates, in part, the admonishment in the regulations that “the employer will be expected” to proceed informally. 29 C.F.R. § 303(b). In this case, Peeples contends that he provided an adequate and timely § 303(b) notice. Therefore, he contends, defendant’s repeated efforts to obtain additional information were not justified. Peeples contends, explicitly, that if his crabbed, indeed, outright false, responses to Coastal’s repeated efforts to obtain information from him frustrated Coastal, then Coastal’s sole means of redress was to seek a formal medical certification and forgo the continued resort to informal mechanisms. I disagree. Based on the undisputed facts established in this record, viewed in the light most favorable to Peeples, it is clear as a matter of law that Peeples may not prevail on his FMLA claim because he failed to provide an adequate and timely § 303(b) notice. Specifically, it is undisputed in this case, as the detailed factual account set forth above demonstrates, that despite repeated efforts by responsible officials of the defendant to obtain informally the information necessary to trigger defendant’s duties under the FMLA, Peeples refused, without justification, to reveal any diagnosis or prognosis for his return, even though that information could be “readily accomplished as a practical matter,” see 29 C.F.R. § 303(b), and could easily have been disclosed to defendant. Indeed, defendant was ultimately prohibited by Peeples’s doctor even from communicating with Peeples. Under these circumstances, as a matter of law, defendant’s termination of Peeples’s employment did not violate the FMLA. In contending that he provided adequate and timely § 303(b) notice, Peeples erroneously emphasizes that the March 10, 2000, discharge instructions and work excuse he received from Carroll County General Hospital were faxed to Ziskind. See Pee-ples’s Opp. at 3. The document containing the discharge instructions contains information about Peeples’s emergency room visit (“psychiatric consult”) and the preliminary diagnosis he received there (“Depressive DO NOS”). Peeples’s contention that the March 10, 2000, instructions and work excuse were faxed to Ziskind on March 13, 2000, id., is, manifestly, untrue. Rather, there is no evidence that Peeples ever provided the diagnosis made in the emergency room, and specifically the discharge instructions, to defendant before defendant conducted discovery in this lawsuit. That is, the record is clear that Peeples faxed to Ziskind on March 13, 2000, only that portion of the emergency room document containing the work ex cuse (stating that, as to “restrictions,” he had “none,” and that his return to work would be “determined by [his primary care physician]”). Peeples’s Dep. at 113; see also Def.’s Ex. 14; Ajf. of Ziskind ¶ 6; see supra n. 4. Thus, as of the commencement of what would become an extended period of indeterminate and unexplained leave, on March 13, 2000, Peeples provided his employer no information other than that he would perhaps provide more information after he had seen his physician. It is absurd to suggest, let alone to believe, that this was adequate under federal law. See Carter, 121 F.3d at 1149; see infra. But the situation grew even more absurd in the ensuing weeks, when, as Peeples and his physicians gained greater information, their manifest hostility to sharing it with his employer grew even more resolute. On March 13, 2000, Peeples had told defendant, i.e., Ziskind, that he “hoped” to return to work after seeing Dr. Braman on March 17, 2000. Peeples’s Dep. at 113-14. On March 17, 2000, defendant received a note from Dr. Braman. The note states that Peeples “need[ed] follow-up appointments and medication adjustment,” that Peeples was “not yet ready to resume work,” and that Peeples could not return to work before a reevaluation on March 27, 2000. Def.’s Ex. 15. At this point, Pee-ples, an important member of the management team for his employer and the person in charge of the busiest department, had been out of work from the afternoon of Friday, March 10, 2000, through Friday, March 17, 2000, and this is the only information defendant had received from Pee-ples in respect to his need for leave. Pee-ples never disclosed the nature or etiology of his condition or the fact that he would be seeing a psychiatrist for evaluation. In fact, Peeples never disclosed that he was being treated by a psychiatrist for depression until he initiated this litigation; neither did Dr. Braman so advise the defendant. On March 23, 2000, Dr. de la Cruz performed a psychiatric evaluation of Peeples. Dr. de la Cruz’s notes reflect that he diagnosed Peeples with “a single episode” of “major depression” of “moderate severity” and he prepared a statement the very next day in which he recommended that Pee-ples should remain off work for “about two [to] three weeks.” Def.’s Ex. 18. Peeples also began counseling at this time. Def.’s Ex. 16. It is undisputed that this evaluation, diagnosis, treatment regimen, and prognosis were not communicated to defendant; there was absolutely no good reason, nor indeed any rational reason, to withhold this information from Peeples’s employer. Yet, over the next two weeks, while defendant (acting “informally” as authorized and encouraged by the FMLA regulations discussed supra) sought to learn the circumstances surrounding Pee-ples’s absence from work and his prospects for returning, Peeples and Dr. Braman continued to say that they were unsure of the diagnosis and that they would not know more until he had additional “evaluations.” On March 27, 2000, defendant received another note from Dr. Braman. Def.’s Ex. 19. Dr. Braman did not share with defendant Dr. de la Cruz’s diagnosis, nor did she project a return-to-work date. The note merely states that she had seen Pee-ples on March 27, 2000, and that he was not to return to work before his reevaluation on April 12, 2000. Inexplicably, no explanation was provided by Dr. Braman to the defendant, even though it seems perfectly clear that the April 12, 2000, prospective return-to-work-date was tied directly to Dr. de la Cruz’s opinion that Peeples should take two or three weeks of sick leave. Three weeks from the date of Dr. de la Cruz’s March 23, 2000, examination and opinion is April 13, 2000. The unjustified and, frankly, misguided scheme crafted by Peeples, in which Dr. Braman acquiesced, to withhold all substantive information from defendant, see supra n. 6, and the concomitant decision to provide only the utterly conclusory and worthless reports that “further evaluations” were needed, understandably prompted Hock, in her capacity as Director of Human Resources, to call Pee-ples on March 30, 2000, to continue the defendant’s informal efforts to obtain more (and genuinely substantive) information as contemplated by the regulations implementing the FMLA. See Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 5. In an extraordinary lack of understanding of what a mature member of management of a business enterprise should clearly appreciate, as well as a manifest lack of common sense, Peeples viewed his employer’s desire to have a better understanding of the reason for his absence and his anticipated date of return as harassment. Thus, in keeping with his inexplicable scheme, Peeples did not tell Hock that he was diagnosed with depression and was (or soon would be) receiving treatment in the form of therapy and counseling. Instead, he hinted to her that he had an “overactive thyroid” and was to see an endocrinologist. Def.’s Ex. 30. However, his thyroid was fine, as Peeples had learned as early as March 18, 2000. Pee-ples also told Hock that, although he had no “restrictions” he could not perform work of any kind at Coastal. Aff. of Kimberly Hock ¶ 6. From Hock’s perspective (and thus, from defendant’s perspective), Peeples was essentially reporting that he needed some unknown quantum of time off, to permit some unknown medication to take effect to deal with some unknown condition. Def.’s Ex. 30. This hardly satisfied Peeples’s duty to provide an adequate and timely § 303(b) notice. On March 31, 2000, Peeples (motivated solely by a desire to look into whether his job, which he contends made him sick in the first instance, would be held for him, and not by any desire “to consult with [his] employer[ ] ... in order to work out a treatment schedule which [would] best suit[ ] the needs of both the employer and the employee,” see 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(e)) e-mailed Bruce Clasing. Def.’s Ex. 21. Once again, it is undisputed that Peeples did not reveal Dr. de la Cruz’s diagnosis or explain why he was absent from work. Peeples told Bruce Clasing that he would be reevaluated on April 12, 2000. He did not say for what reason, but he did say, without explanation and wholly gratuitously, that he was “protected by the ADA.” Peeples also told Bruce Clasing that he was “unable to predict” whether he would be able to perform the manager’s job. Finally, Peeples stated a preference to communicate by e-mail because he found his telephone conversation with Hock very stressful. At this point, Peeples had been away from work for three weeks without a substantive (or honest) explanation for his absence. In continued pursuit of an informal attempt to obtain an explanation, Harold Clasing spoke with Dr. Braman after obtaining Peeples’s consent. Aff. of Harold, Clasing ¶ 8. In an extraordinary act of arrogance and disregard for his employer’s legitimate interests, Peeples declined to participate in the call and therefore abjured any opportunity to ensure that there was no miscommunication between his employer and his doctor. Dr. Braman told Harold Clasing that she had been seeing Peeples since early March for “agitation, insomnia, anxiety and some symptoms of depression.” Def.’s Ex. 16. According to Dr. Braman, there were no general or specific restrictions on Peeples’s ability to work (she says “physical restrictions”), except that his mental condition made him “unable to work [at Coastal].” Aff. of Harold Clasing ¶ 8; Aff. of Randi Braman, D.O. ¶ 9. Dr. Braman did not tell Harold Clasing that Peeples was undergoing a course of treatment ordered by Dr. de la Cruz, nor did Dr. Braman tell Harold Clasing that Peeples could be expected to return to work two or three weeks from first seeing Dr. de la Cruz. Def.’s Exs. 2, 16. Furthermore, Dr. Braman did not relate to Harold Clasing, as she belatedly opines in her affidavit, that Peeples would be able to return to work with two or three weeks of uninterrupted time off. Def.’s Ex. 16. Rather, her own notes reflect that Dr. Braman refused to answer additional questions and ordered that Coastal should not contact Peeples for any reason. Id. Manifestly, during the period of March 10 through April 4, 2000, defendant was utterly incapable of making a preliminary determination as to whether Peeples’s absence was justified, i.e., whether it was likely caused by a “serious health condition” and thus covered by the FMLA, because Peeples and his doctor were providing incomplete responses, indeed, dishonest responses, to defendant’s informal requests for information. Most pointedly, in addition to all the other efforts cat-alogued in this record, Ziskind wrote, when Peeples asked about the status of his job in an April 3, 2000, e-mail, “That’s what we are trying to find out from you.” Not even this plaintive request, made three weeks into the Pee-ples’s unexpected and unexplained period of leave, elicited a substantive response from Peeples. Not surprisingly, inasmuch as she was doing her patient’s bidding, Dr. Braman’s conversation with Harold Clasing the next day did nothing to cure the subsisting deficiency in disclosures. To the contrary, the reasonableness of Harold Clasing’s interpretation of their conversation — that Peeples could not and almost certainly would not return to work at Coastal, coupled with Peeples’s own view that Harold Clasing sincerely believed what he wrote in the letter of termination, i.e., that Peeples would not return to Coastal, Dep. of Pee-ples at 189, demonstrates that defendant permissibly acted on the information that Peeples and his doctor permitted it to have. Ultimately, defendant was forbidden to communicate with Peeples at all. Def.’s Ex. 16. In other words, having had its attempts to get an explanation for Peeples’s absence (or any sort of answer regarding Peeples’s ability to return to his job) thwarted by Peeples and Dr. Braman, defendant not unreasonably determined, in good faith after conferring with counsel, that Peeples was not going to return to the manager’s job and thus removed Peeples from the payroll effective April 5, 2000. Cf. 29 C.F.R. § 825.309(b) (“If an employee gives unequivocal notice of intent not to return to work, the employer’s obligations under FMLA ... to restore the employee cease. However, the[] obligation[] con-tinuéis] if an employee indicates he or she may be unable to return to work but expresses a continuing desire to do so.”). Thus, Peeples’s reliance on Wilson v. Lemington Home for the Aged, 159 F.Supp.2d 186 (W.D.Pa.2001), in the face of his repeated equivocations, evasions, and misrepresentations, to contend that the sole lawful response available to defendant was to invoke the formal procedures provided for in the FMLA and its implementing regulations, including imposition of a requirement that Peeples produce a formal certification of his physician, coupled with formal notice of the consequences upon his failure to comply, is unavailing. Because Peeples never satisfied the threshold notice requirements the FMLA imposes upon employees who would exercise their rights under the statute, defendant’s duties and obligations under FMLA were never triggered. Accordingly, defendant could not and did violate the statute. The facts and circumstances of Wilson make it clearly distinguishable from this case. In Wilson, plaintiff was the acting director of nursing at a nursing home. 159 F.Supp.2d at 187. Her psychiatric health deteriorated precipitously in consequence of long hours of work necessitated by an employee strike at the facility. Id. at 187-88. Other managers and employees at the facility were fully aware of plaintiffs precarious psychiatric condition because she had experienced uncontrolled crying and other symptoms in their presence at the workplace. Id. at 188. One manager in particular, Ms. Stevenson, who was in charge of admissions, medical records and marketing, had specific detailed knowledge of plaintiffs overwrought condition and she specifically spoke to the nursing home Administrator about how the Director of Nursing and the Executive Director of the nursing home, plaintiffs first and second tier supervisors, were treating plaintiff by overworking her “to the point of exhaustion” and