option on automated telephone system. He never attempted to contact his supervisor or human resources representative concerning the nature or severity of his illness, even though he did not have company “sick” days remaining. In his deposition, Plaintiff testified as follows: Q. At any time up and — from April the 6th of 2001 through April .the 26th of 2001, did you at any time indicate to any member — any human being at Daimler-Chrysler any of the specifics of your condition or your situation or your situation or your sym-pomatology? A. I don’t believe so. Q. Okay. At any time from April the 6th of 20 ed telephone system does not notify an employer that the employee is suffering from a serious health condition. Satterfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 973, 980 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Slaughter v. American Building
holding that when the plaintiffs child was examined only once by a physician and was not required to be absent from day care for more than three days he had no serious medical condition within the meaning of the fmla holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act holding that where an employee objects to the insurers settlement of his causes of action a letter from the insurer that merely told the unsophisticated employee that it intended to commence an action against the third party unless the employee contacted it within 30 days without any indication that the employees failure to do so would forfeit and assign his rights to the insurer was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 292 in light of the liberal construction to be given the workers compensation law to benefit the beneficiaries thereof  the employees holding that a note delivered by an employees mother which stated that the employee was having a lot of pain in her side and would not be able to work that day and the mothers statement that the employee was sick were insufficient as a matter of law to inform the employer that the employees request to take time off was for a serious health condition within the meaning of the fmla holding that both the cfra and the fmla require the employee to provide notice to the employer of the employees intent to take leave