When an employee on FMLA leave also happens to be a problem employee, HR can feel trapped. A recent federal appellate decision is a reminder that the FMLA is not a shield against legitimate discipline. If the company can show it would have taken the same action regardless of leave, it is on solid legal ground.
TL;DR: A federal appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on an employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference and retaliation claims. The court held that the company would have fired him for safety violations regardless of his FMLA leave, which defeated both claims.
The facts: Leave approved, rules broken
An employee took approved FMLA leave for medical reasons. After taking leave, he violated workplace safety rules by personally administering first aid to another worker instead of following the company’s required reporting procedures.
He had already been counseled for the same conduct before and was explicitly told not to provide medical treatment himself. The company cited his repeated violation of safety protocol as the reason for termination.
He later sued, claiming disability discrimination under the ADA and interference and retaliation under the FMLA.
The law: Leave rights, not leave immunity
The Family and Medical Leave Act protects employees’ rights to take job-protected leave for qualifying medical and family reasons. It prohibits two kinds of violations:
- Interference – when an employee is entitled to an FMLA benefit and does not receive it.
- Retaliation (discrimination) – when an employer takes an adverse action because an employee used or requested FMLA leave.
But there is an important qualifier. Employers can prevail if they would have made the same decision even if the employee had never taken leave. That defense protects employers who can prove the termination was based on legitimate, documented reasons.
The ruling: Same decision, no violation
The court found no evidence that the employer denied any FMLA benefit or acted because of the leave. The employee’s leave had been approved, and the company offered consistent, well-documented reasons for the termination.
The record showed clear violations of safety policy and prior counseling. Because the company demonstrated that it would have taken the same action regardless of FMLA leave, both the interference and retaliation claims failed.
The lesson: Documentation wins when timing looks bad
1. FMLA protects leave, not misconduct.
Leave laws do not excuse rule violations, insubordination, or performance issues that exist independent of the leave itself.
2. Document every step.
Every warning, coaching memo, or safety write-up becomes critical evidence if the employee later claims retaliation.
3. Keep timing from becoming the story.
If a termination happens soon after leave, detailed records help prove that the performance issues were unrelated.
4. Control the message.
Train managers to focus discussions on behavior or performance, not on the fact that someone took FMLA leave.
The bottom line: Leave laws protect rights, not results
The FMLA guarantees an employee’s right to take protected leave, but it does not guarantee job security for unrelated misconduct. If an employer can show it would have made the same decision regardless of leave, courts will support that decision every time.