Firing Employee 74 Days after FMLA request Propels Retaliation Case

Schenectady, NY (WorkersCompensation.com) – Sometimes it’s the timing of an employee’s termination that gets a company in trouble.

A company that fired a senior counsel in its legal affairs department not long after he began taking FMLA leave for Remicade treatments learned that lesson the hard way in Beshaw v. MVP Serv. Corp, No. 1:21-cv-584 (GLS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. 09/07/22).

The employee, who worked in the company’s legal affairs department, was diagnosed with pulmonary and cardiac sarcoidosis. He requested leave in August 2019 for Remicade treatments for the disease and the company denied it. 

Several months later, the company approved periodic half-day absences for the treatment. According to the senior counsel, shortly after he requested permission to take the half-day absences, the company began interviewing for a new counsel to join the legal affairs department.

On August 19, 2020, the company informed the employee that it had eliminated his position due to "functional reorganization" and that he was being terminated.

The employee subsequently sued the company for FMLA interference and FMLA retaliation.

FMLA Interference

The court explained that to state an FMLA interference claim, the employee had to show, in part, that the company denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that the claim was flawed because it repeatedly granted the employee’s requests for leave. The court pointed out that the employer at first denied the leave in August 2019. Further, according to the employee, the senior counsel, as a result of that denial, did not take his requested absences to undergo the treatment until the company approved his leave months later.

FMLA Retaliation

To establish an FMLA retaliation case, the court noted, the employee had to show, in part, that he suffered an adverse employment action that occurred under circumstances indicating retaliatory intent.

The court noted that the senior counsel contended that the timing of the firing showed it was connected to his FMLA leave, for purposes of stating a retaliation complaint. The court rejected the employer’s argument that temporal proximity isn’t sufficient to state an interference claim. It might be insufficient, the court stated, where the employer has subjected the employee to gradual adverse actions before he requested FMLA leave. But that wasn’t the case here.

The court pointed out that the employee notified the company in May 2020 that he would be taking leave, and that he took half-days off on June 5, June 19, July 3, and August 13, 2020, to undergo Remicade treatment. Further, the company terminated him on August 19, 2020, “less that three months after he began utilizing his leave and less than a week after his most recent half-day leave,” the court wrote.

The temporal proximity between the beginning of his leave and his termination was, at this stage of the litigation, sufficient to establish a retaliation claim, the court held.

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

Share This Article: