Dr. Gholam R. Ehteshami, a longtime professor of Chemical Engineering Technology at Navajo Technical University (NTU), is challenging his termination that occurred while he was on federally protected medical leave. According to documentation, Dr. Ehteshami was unable to return to work on time due to flight cancelations while abroad, leading to what he claims was an improper termination for “job abandonment” despite his decade of service to the institution. The case raises significant questions about employee protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the obligations of employers when unforeseen circumstances affect an employee’s return-to-work timeline.
The Circumstances of Termination
Dr. Ehteshami had taken approved FMLA leave to care for his ill wife abroad, reportedly in Iran. When attempting to return to the United States, he encountered an unforeseen political crisis that resulted in flight cancelations, preventing his timely return to campus. Despite his immediate efforts to return and his eventual arrival back on campus just days after his expected return date, NTU terminated his employment, citing “job abandonment” as the justification. The university reportedly locked him out of his email and proceeded to replace him in his position.
During his tenure at NTU, Dr. Ehteshami had made significant contributions to the institution, including playing a pivotal role in securing ABET accreditation for the university’s engineering programs. His sudden termination after more than ten years of service has raised concerns about potential violations of federal labor law protections, specifically those guaranteed under the FMLA.
“I was devastated,” Dr. Ehteshami stated. “I dedicated years of my life to NTU, supporting students and expanding academic programs. I had every intention to return, but through no fault of my own, I was stuck in a travel crisis. Instead of understanding, they locked me out of my email, refused to review my case fairly, and replaced me.”
FMLA Protections and Reinstatement Rights
The FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for qualifying reasons, including caring for a family member with a serious health condition. A fundamental protection under the FMLA is the right to job restoration upon return from leave. According to Department of Labor regulations, “On return from FMLA leave, an employee is entitled to be returned to the same position the employee held when leave commenced, or to an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.”
This protection is designed to ensure that employees who need to take leave for medical or family reasons do not risk losing their jobs. The reinstatement right applies even if the employee has been replaced or the position has been restructured to accommodate the employee’s absence. While there are limitations to this right, they typically apply in specific circumstances such as layoffs, elimination of positions, or when an employee is unable to perform essential job functions upon return.
Regarding Dr. Ehteshami’s situation, employment law experts note that brief delays in return due to circumstances beyond an employee’s control generally should not negate reinstatement rights. Though returning late from FMLA leave could potentially justify termination in some cases, the employer must consider whether the delay was reasonable and whether the employee made good-faith efforts to communicate and return promptly.
Communication Challenges During International Travel
A significant complicating factor in Dr. Ehteshami’s case appears to be the communication difficulties he faced while in Iran. According to reports, Iran’s government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps block access to approximately 70 percent of the internet, including many common communication platforms. The country has been described as censoring more internet traffic than any nation besides China, creating substantial barriers for travelers attempting to maintain contact with employers in the United States.
This communication barrier may have affected Dr. Ehteshami’s ability to provide timely updates to NTU regarding his travel situation. In similar cases involving federal employees who experienced flight cancellations, questions have been raised about whether marking an employee as absent without leave (AWOL) is appropriate when circumstances beyond their control prevent timely return. The level of effort made to communicate despite these barriers could be relevant to determining whether termination was justified.
Legal Considerations and Potential Remedies
Dr. Ehteshami has filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, and according to his representative, is considering additional legal action under Navajo labor laws. The case presents several important legal questions regarding the interplay between FMLA protections and unexpected travel disruptions.
Legal experts analyzing similar situations have noted that terminating an employee during or immediately following FMLA leave requires careful consideration. While the FMLA does not provide absolute protection against termination, any adverse employment action must be clearly unrelated to the employee’s exercise of FMLA rights. The employer bears the burden of demonstrating that an employee would not have remained employed regardless of taking leave.
Several court cases have addressed similar situations. In Mitchell v. Dutchman Mfg., the court considered whether returning an employee to a position with different duties constituted a violation of FMLA restoration rights. While that case involved job duties rather than termination, it underscores the courts’ attention to ensuring employees are not disadvantaged after returning from protected leave.
In cases where employers claim “job abandonment,” they must typically demonstrate that the employee had no intention of returning to work. Given Dr. Ehteshami’s documented efforts to return and his arrival back on campus shortly after his expected return date, this standard may be difficult to meet.
The University’s Response and Policy Considerations
NTU’s position on Dr. Ehteshami’s termination could potentially hinge on institutional policies regarding extended absences and leave extensions. While universities often have policies addressing faculty absences in faculty handbooks, these policies must still comply with federal law, including the FMLA.
For faculty members, particularly those with tenure or long service records, termination often involves specific procedures. Many institutions distinguish between non-reappointment and dismissal for cause, with the latter requiring more substantial justification. If Dr. Ehteshami’s termination was processed as a dismissal for cause based on job abandonment, questions may arise about whether proper procedures were followed.
Faculty members also face unique circumstances regarding FMLA implementation. Unlike hourly workers, faculty often have complex work arrangements that involve teaching, research, and service obligations that may not fit neatly into the FMLA’s hour-counting framework. Universities typically must consider how to handle class coverage, research commitments, and other responsibilities during faculty leave.
Broader Implications for Employee Rights
The case highlights broader issues regarding employee rights during international travel. With increasingly global workforces and frequent international travel, employers may need to develop more flexible policies to accommodate unexpected travel disruptions, particularly when they occur in regions with political instability or communication restrictions.
Legal scholars have noted that the FMLA was designed to help employees balance work and family responsibilities without fear of losing their jobs. In cases involving unexpected travel disruptions, particularly in regions with known communication challenges, employers may need to exercise reasonable flexibility rather than strictly enforcing return dates.
Similar situations have occurred in other employment contexts. In one documented case, a federal employee faced potential AWOL designation after flight cancelations prevented timely return from personal travel. After seeking guidance from HR and union representatives, the employee was ultimately granted annual leave rather than being marked AWOL, suggesting a recognition that employees should not be penalized for circumstances beyond their control.
Fight for Reinstatement Continues
Dr. Ehteshami is urging NTU to reconsider its decision, reinstate him to his former position, and revise its leave policies to prevent similar situations in the future. Faculty, students, and labor rights advocates are reportedly rallying behind him, calling for transparency and justice.
If his complaint with the Department of Labor proceeds, investigators would likely examine whether NTU’s actions constituted FMLA interference or retaliation. Employers are prohibited from interfering with an employee’s exercise of FMLA rights or retaliating against employees for using FMLA leave. Potential remedies could include reinstatement, back pay, and other damages.
Should the matter proceed to litigation, courts would likely examine whether Dr. Ehteshami’s delayed return constituted a legitimate basis for termination or whether the university’s actions violated FMLA protections. Courts generally recognize that employees returning from FMLA leave must be reinstated unless the employer can demonstrate that the employee would not otherwise have been employed at the time reinstatement is requested.
Legal Battle Ahead
Dr. Ehteshami’s case illustrates the complex intersection of FMLA protections, international travel complications, and faculty employment rights. As workplaces become increasingly global, employers may need to develop more nuanced approaches to handling unexpected travel disruptions, particularly when employees are in regions with known communication challenges.
For employees taking FMLA leave that involves international travel, the case underscores the importance of understanding both their rights under federal law and the potential challenges that may arise when returning from regions with political instability or communication restrictions. For employers, it highlights the need for flexible policies that accommodate reasonable delays while still maintaining operational continuity.
As Dr. Ehteshami pursues his complaint with the Department of Labor and potentially other legal remedies, his case may establish important precedents regarding the scope of FMLA protections when unforeseen international circumstances affect an employee’s return-to-work timeline. Regardless of the outcome, the situation emphasizes the critical importance of clear communication, reasonable accommodation, and adherence to federal labor protections in maintaining positive employee-employer relationships.
