Faulty tools, not Medical Leave, Cut Worker Loose from Machinist Job

Cincinnati, OH (WorkersCompensation.com) – Creating clear written policies for employee attendance and work performance, and using acknowledgement forms, can go a long way toward protecting an employer from retaliation claims.

Taking those steps helped a tool company in Ohio defend itself against a machinist’s FMLA retaliation claim in Santiago v. Meyer Tool, Inc., No. App. Div. 21-0002 (S.D. Ohio 08/30/22).

After the machinist took FMLA leave, she said her supervisor had her work performance under a microscope. Then, on July 17, 2017, the company told her that she was being discharged for producing non-conforming parts.

She sued the company for FMLA retaliation.

The court stated that, once the machinist established her initial claim, the company had to articulate a valid, lawful reason for the termination. If it did so, the machinist could continue with her lawsuit, but only if she established that the reason the company gave was a pretext for retaliation.

Legitimate, Non-retaliatory Reason

Here, the court found that the reason the company gave was legitimate—the employee’s repeated violation of company policies. There was plenty of documentation to show the machinist in fact violated those policies. The court observed that the employee received corrective action on seven separate occasions due to violations of the company attendance policies and multiple corrective actions due to producing deviated parts in violation of the company’s tool performance policies.

“[I]n 2016 and 2017 alone, [the machinist] violated either policy on eight separate occasions, resulting in one verbal warning, three written warnings, two suspensions and, finally, her termination,” the court wrote.

Pretext

The court also found that the worker failed to show that the company’s stated reason for firing her was pretextual. It pointed to several pieces of evidence to support its finding.

For example, the court noted that the employee signed the corrective actions forms acknowledging her policy violations, including on June 6, 2017, with respect to four deviated tools she allegedly made.

In addition, the company had had the machinist sign forms acknowledging that she understood company policies and that violations, such as making faulty tools, could lead to termination.

The court also pointed out that the machinist was suspended on June 19, 2017, for violating the attendance policy—about 30 days before her termination. “Common sense tells this Court that an employer may consider all relevant factors, including past misconduct and prior corrective action, in determining whether certain conduct warrants an employee's termination,” the court wrote.

The court found that the machinist’s recent policy violations, with the backdrop of her history of violations, were the motivating factor for her termination. It emphasized the temporal proximity of the termination to her latest violations, noting that she was fired within a short window of her producing the four deviated parts and violating additional company tool policies.

The court held that the company offered a legitimate reason for terminating the machinist that was not pretextual. Accordingly, it granted the company summary judgment on the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim.

Forms, email updates, legal, regulatory, and compliance information from Ohio and 52 other jurisdictions across the U.S. can be found on WorkCompResearch.com.

Share This Article: