The Layoff Was Planned Before His FMLA Request. The Timing Became the Problem.

The company had decided to eliminate his job before he told his manager about his planned parental leave. So why did he get his termination notice in April when the other people on the layoff list remained until July?

---

TL;DR: An employer had already selected an employee for a restructuring when he told his manager he planned to take FMLA leave. A Texas federal court ruled that the earlier layoff decision did not resolve whether the employer moved up his termination because of that leave. His retaliation claim can proceed to trial.

📄 Read the court’s opinion

---

The layoff plan preceded his disclosure to managers

The employee helped run a customer support unit. As the company restructured it, managers selected his position for elimination. A January presentation put his role on a list of jobs to be phased out, and a February document again identified it for elimination.

Meanwhile, he and his wife were expecting a child. He had asked HR about parental leave in January and requested confidentiality. On March 3, he told his manager about the pregnancy and his plan to take leave later that spring.

He formally requested FMLA leave on April 9. Two days later, the company told him he would be terminated. The other employees included in the reduction stayed until July. He claimed that the company moved up his termination because he planned to take leave.

The court focused on why he received notice in April

The court denied the employer’s request to end the FMLA retaliation claim before trial. The layoff decision predated the manager’s knowledge of the planned leave, but a jury could still find that the leave prompted the company to move up this employee’s termination. Acceleration of a pre-determined termination can be a separate act of retaliation.

Its explanation was that his responsibilities were winding down sooner and that his salary was needed for a new position. The company said it selected April 11 in “early March,” which left unclear whether that choice preceded his March 3 disclosure.

There was a second dispute. The employee said substantial work remained when he was notified of his termination, and a coworker testified that his job functions continued afterward. Other people took over parts of his work. A jury could therefore question the company’s reason for placing him on an earlier timetable. The close timing added to that evidence; timing alone was insufficient.

For employers, the risk lies in the later decisions made under an existing layoff plan. The timing and remaining work need explanations that fit the actual sequence. Three practical points follow.

Three lessons from the April notice and July layoffs

An earlier departure needs its own explanation

The January documents showed that the company had selected his role for elimination. But the company said only that it chose April 11 as his notice date in “early March.” That left open whether it made the choice before or after his manager learned of the planned leave on March 3. Record when a notice date is selected, especially when one employee is placed ahead of others in the same reduction.

Remaining work can undermine an early exit explanation

The company said this employee’s duties were ending sooner than the others’ duties. Testimony that his work continued created a factual dispute. A transition plan should match the stated reason for an earlier departure, including who will handle active projects afterward.

An HR conversation does not mean the manager knew

The employee’s January questions to HR did not establish that the layoff decisionmakers knew about his leave plans. His March conversation with his manager did. A dated note identifying who received each disclosure makes that distinction easier to establish later.

The company had paperwork for putting him on the layoff list. The unresolved question was why his clock ran faster than everyone else’s.