Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
The Family and Medical Leave Act provides workers with many important statutory rights, including ones designed to protect employees from inappropriate workplace punishment for exercising their rights, or wrongful denial of benefits. These rights and protections are not unlimited, and they are not a “straitjacket” on employers preventing them from administering workplace discipline on workers who seek or use FMLA benefits. Employers may, in some situations, discipline – or even fire – a worker who has requested, has used, or is on FMLA leave. If you have questions about using FMLA benefits and issuing workplace discipline, get the advice you need by consulting a knowledgeable Atlanta FMLA retaliation lawyer as soon as possible.
Earlier this year, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers federal actions in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama) looked into this issue of the interplay between workplace discipline and FMLA rights.
The employee, M.C., was a parks and recreation department worker for a city government in Florida. The employee received his requested FMLA leave forms in April 2018. City rules set a 15-day deadline for returning FMLA paperwork. M.C. returned his incomplete paperwork on July 12, more than three months after first receiving the forms.
Along the way, the worker accumulated numerous unexcused absences in June and July, so the city fired the worker on July 26. The next day, the employer received the physician’s FMLA certification form from the man’s doctor.
The city approved the man’s FMLA request (despite its severe lateness) and rescinded the termination, directing the man to return to work on August 8. The worker never came back to work and, after multiple additional unexcused absences, the city terminated him again on August 27.
The worker sued for FMLA interference and retaliation, but the employer prevailed on both claims.
The Three-Step Process of Analyzing Retaliation Claims
Courts assess FMLA retaliation claims similarly to discrimination claims. The worker must initially present a prima facie case of wrongdoing, which shifts the burden to the employer to provide a legitimate reason for its action. That, in turn, shifts the burden back to the worker to demonstrate that the employer’s state reason was merely a pretext and the true motivation was retaliation/discrimination.
The parks worker failed to clear the first step. The law lists the following as essential elements of a prima facie case of retaliation:
- the worker engaged in protected conduct,
- the worker suffered an adverse action, and
- a “causal link” ties the protected conduct to the adverse action.
Showing “temporal proximity” – meaning closeness in time – may be enough to demonstrate the required linkage. When the time gap is very small, temporal proximity alone may go a long way – but not always. In the Florida case, the time gap was very small but the necessary linkage still was not present. As the court explained, the city had ample evidence that the worker had an extended history of missing work and failing to call the employer in advance to provide notice of his absence. The city also had documented proof that it originally began contemplating adverse action against the man for his numerous “no-call-no-show” absences before he made his original request for an FMLA benefit.
FMLA Interference Requires a Benefit Denied
As noted above, the man also lost his FMLA interference claim. FMLA interference, at its core, involves an employer denying an FMLA benefit to an employee who was entitled to that benefit. In this worker’s case, the employer accepted the man’s FMLA leave request (although it could have rejected it due to its lateness,) rescinded the man’s original termination, and granted him a period of leave lasting until August 7. This benefit was the only one for which the worker applied. He was not injured and had not requested a new period of leave when the employer fired him in late August.
In other words, the worker received the benefit to which he was entitled in July and was not entitled to an additional benefit in August, meaning that the employer never denied him any benefit that he was entitled to.
Some Take-Away Thoughts
Employers who seek to discipline a worker soon after that employee has engaged in FMLA-protected activity (requesting leave, taking leave, etc.) do not necessarily have to forego or delay taking that action in light of the worker’s FMLA-related activity. Employers should, however, proceed meticulously and with caution, carefully documenting in the worker’s employment file all misconduct by the worker and all disciplinary steps taken in response, thus providing a record of the facts that substantiate the legitimacy of the employer’s action.
Workers similarly should recognize that an employer’s decision to issue discipline shortly after the worker exercised his/her FMLA rights makes for potential evidence of retaliation, but the timeline of events (and the temporal proximity within it) may not be enough by itself to show retaliatory motivation, even when the time gap is a short one.
If you have questions or concerns about your FMLA rights or obligations, whether you are an employer or an employee, it pays to get informed advice from a knowledgeable legal professional. The experienced Atlanta FMLA retaliation attorneys at the law firm of Parks, Chesin & Walbert have helped countless employer and employee clients address their FMLA matters, equipping us to provide you with the information, advice, and advocacy you need. Contact us today at 404-873-8048 or through this website to schedule a no-cost consultation to find out more.