Some employment cases hinge on timing, comparators, or complicated workplace dynamics. This one was simpler. A resident skipped work for a job interview and then sent what his supervisors viewed as a contemptuous email when asked about it.
TL;DR: The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a medical residency program accused of retaliating against a resident for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Months after taking approved leave for the birth of his child, the resident skipped a shift to attend a job interview, failed to follow call-out procedures, and sent a contemptuous email to his chief resident when asked about the absence. The chief resident issued a written reprimand and referred the matter to a disciplinary committee, which later suspended him for two weeks for unprofessional conduct. Even assuming the resident could establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, the court held that he failed to show the program’s explanation for the discipline was pretext.
đź“„ Read the decision
Missing a shift for a job interview
The plaintiff was a resident physician in a medical residency program from 2016 through 2019. In April 2018, he requested and received approval for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after the birth of his child. He took about two weeks of leave in late May and early June.
Several months later, on October 5, 2018, he did not show up for work.
That evening, his chief resident emailed asking why he had missed his shift and why he had not notified anyone beforehand. When she still had not heard from him by Monday morning, she sent a second email.
The resident eventually replied that he had been at a job interview. Instead of apologizing for missing the shift or for the delayed response, he suggested that he would have told her about the interview if she had not been absent from work herself.
The chief resident did not take that well. She described the email as “very contemptuous and simply unacceptable.” She issued a written reprimand and referred the matter to the program’s disciplinary committee.
The program concluded the conduct was unprofessional
The disciplinary committee reviewed the situation and identified several problems:
• The resident missed work without following the program’s notification procedures.
• He did not respond promptly when his supervisor asked about the absence.
• His response to the chief resident was unprofessional.
The committee also considered prior concerns about the resident’s professionalism raised by supervisors.
Based on all of that, the committee suspended him for two weeks and placed the discipline in his permanent record. An internal appeals committee later upheld the decision and required him to complete a professionalism course.
The resident blamed FMLA leave
The resident later sued, claiming the discipline was retaliation for the FMLA leave he had taken months earlier.
The Sixth Circuit assumed for the sake of argument that he could establish the basic elements of a retaliation claim. But that still left the key question: was the program’s explanation for the discipline real, or was it a cover for retaliation?
The court concluded it was real.
The program pointed to three straightforward reasons for the discipline: the missed shift, the failure to respond promptly to a supervisor, and the tone of the email that followed. The resident could not produce evidence showing that explanation was false.
The evidence he relied on did not help
The resident pointed to several things he believed showed hostility toward FMLA leave. None created a real dispute about the reason for the discipline.
He cited a WhatsApp message among residents suggesting that program leadership was concerned about possible abuse of sick leave or FMLA leave. But the chief resident who initiated the discipline was not part of that group chat and did not attend the meeting referenced in the message.
He also tried to compare his discipline to other residents. One resident who took FMLA leave received the same two-week suspension after repeatedly lying about her whereabouts. Another resident who missed work was not suspended, but that resident had not engaged in the same unprofessional conduct toward supervisors.
In short, the comparisons did not support the retaliation theory.
Practical lessons for employers
First, tie discipline to specific conduct. Here, the program documented the missed shift, the communication failures, and the email exchange that followed.
Second, professionalism expectations carry real weight in training programs where communication with supervisors is a core job expectation.
Third, prior protected activity does not prevent later discipline. Taking FMLA leave does not shield an employee from consequences for unrelated misconduct that occurs later.
Bottom line
The resident argued that the suspension must have been retaliation for taking FMLA leave months earlier. But when an employer can point to specific, documented misconduct, courts are unlikely to send the case to a jury on a theory that the real reason must have been something else.