Worker's Alleged Fabrications Weaken Claim that Firing was FMLA Retaliation

Oxford, IN (WorkersCompensation.com) – Simply having a genuine basis for terminating an employee, and consistently articulating it, is often the key to a company successfully defending itself against an FMLA retaliation claim. 

In Shrock v. Drug Plastics and Glass Company, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-53-TLS (N.D. Ind. 06/02/22), for example, evidence that company officials truly believed a material handler was falsifying documents and lying about FMLA leave helped insulate the company from the worker’s claim. 

To establish FMLA retaliation based on termination, the court observed, an employee must show that: 1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; 2) the employer terminated him; and 3) there is a causal connection between the two. To proceed further, the employee must show the company’s stated reason for firing him is a pretext for retaliation. 

The court pointed out that the company, which manufactured packaging for medical products, was not required to show that its stated reason for terminating the worker had a basis in fact; it was only required to show that its stated motives were genuine. 

The court rejected the worker’s argument that the company was merely “fishing” for reasons to cut him loose him when it latched onto the idea of accusing him of falsifying documents and fabricating about his efforts to obtain FMLA leave.  

The court pointed out that, while the employee argued he had no intent to falsify, he admitted that some of the information he documented as part of his job was inaccurate. Further, the court found the company genuinely believed that to be the case.  

Moreover, company correspondence, forms the employee completed, and other company documentation demonstrated that the company believed the employee should be terminated for lying about FMLA leave as well.   

For instance, the court stated, the employee informed the human resources director that he had been certified for intermittent FMLA leave and that an unnamed female employee at the company’s third-party FMLA administrator had informed the employee of that certification. Yet, there was evidence that neither was true. The employee also reported having spoken to a doctor’s office about his FMLA leave, the court noted. Yet, there was no record of the communication or of any call from the employee to that office. 

When it decided to terminate the employee, the court explained, the company relied on the information it received from the HR director and a plant manager concerning the alleged document falsification and FMLA fabrications  “[The employee] has offered no evidence that [they] did not honestly believe the stated reason for his termination, that the reason was insufficient or implausible, or that there were contradictions in the Defendant's reason such that a reasonable person would not believe the explanation.” 

The case illustrates some practices employers should keep in mind when deciding to terminate an employee to help show their reasons are genuine, rather than merely an attempt to cover up reprisal.