Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
Employers must tread carefully when disciplining (or firing) workers who have sought to invoke their Family and Medical Leave Act rights. Employers may be vulnerable to liability for FMLA interference or retaliation if they cannot demonstrate that the employee’s exercise of FMLA played no role in the decision-making that yielded the adverse action. On the other hand, employers who have clear evidence that FMLA was not a factor (such as an employer that made an internal decision to punish or fire a worker before the employee requested FMLA leave) need not fear proceeding with their intended adverse action. Whether you are an employer or an employee, the keys often lie with carefully documenting everything and promptly retaining a skilled Atlanta FMLA lawyer.
An FMLA case from here in Metro Atlanta is a good illustration.
The employer was an Alpharetta-based business marketing firm. The employee was one of its project managers. About five years into her tenure, the project manager’s new supervisor placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan (which is a type of formal discipline that establishes a deadline for an employee to improve deficiencies in their work).
Later on, the project manager told her supervisor and an HR representative that she had chronic hypoglycemia. Because the manager provided a doctor’s note, the employer granted her an accommodation: periodic 30-minute breaks throughout the workday.
On June 8, 2016, the employer concluded that the manager was not improving and decided to terminate her employment, scheduling a meeting for June 16. Three days before the termination meeting, the manager called in sick and requested FMLA leave. Because the manager again produced a doctor’s note, the employer granted the leave request. The employer eventually extended the leave until July 22.
On July 26, the company fired the manager.
Often, a close time gap between an employee engaging in an FMLA-related activity and a punitive action by the employer (such as a termination) can represent solid proof of an FMLA violation. For example, suppose that, on Monday the 7th, an employee made a request for three weeks of FMLA leave to start on Friday the 11th. If the employer fired the employee on Wednesday, the 9th, that timeline is often robust evidence that the employee’s exercise of FMLA rights influenced the employer’s termination decision.
That last part, however, is key. The proof the employee presents must establish a link of causation between the exercise of a protected activity and the punitive action. The FMLA’s prohibitions against interference and retaliation are not handcuffs that bar employers from engaging in employee discipline as long as the employer’s motivations are wholly unrelated to that employee’s exercise of their FMLA rights.
In the project manager’s case, the employee invoked her FMLA rights — requesting leave — on June 13, five days after the employer decided to fire her (during a June 8 meeting). That necessarily led the court to the inevitable conclusion that the manager’s invocation of her FMLA right to leave could not have played a role in her termination, “because she had not yet exercised it” when the employer decided to end her employment.
In short, an employer may proceed with firing an employee who exercised their FMLA rights if the employer can demonstrate conclusively that the worker’s use of FMLA played no role in the decision. The strongest form of evidence for an employer occurs when, as here, the employer proves the decision to fire the worker preceded the initial invocation of FMLA rights.
Do you have questions about the FMLA and an employee’s FMLA rights? If so, ensure you receive knowledgeable and reliable answers by consulting with the experienced Atlanta FMLA interference attorneys at Parks, Chesin & Walbert. We handle these issues routinely and are ready to help you. Contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today.