By David Worley
In Dove v. Community Education Centers, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that a terminated corrections officer could proceed with his retaliation claim, when he was terminated after he had requested leave for his symptoms of depression. The court also upheld an interference claim against the employer for not informing him of his available FMLA leave. While the court was not deciding the merits of the claims, it was deciding, upon a summary judgment motion, whether the claims were sufficient to proceed to a trial.
The officer suffered symptoms of depression and bipolar disorder, and took two weeks off to treat his symptoms after being employed for 10 months. He provided proper documentation on his return. After confiding in management about the nature of his symptoms, he experienced a number of adverse employment actions including disparaging remarks, unjust evaluations and inferior work assignments. He was openly referred to by management as “crazy.” He was terminated 14 months after his employment began.
The court found that the proximity between the requesting of leave and the termination alone was sufficient to indicate a retaliatory action enough to survive summary judgment. Further, although the employee requested leave before being employed for a year as required by the act, the court found that subsequent requests after being employed for a year made the suit sustainable. The court reasoned that the ongoing adverse treatment starting at 10 months of employment at ending at his 14 month termination also supported his claim.
The court also found that there were supportable interference and retaliation claims under the FMLA. For the interference claim, the court indicated, the plaintiff needed to only show that the employer failed to inform him of the available FMLA leave that was available to him. Further, as termination of an employee is evidence of interference with the employee’s FMLA rights, the officer had more than enough alleged to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
The court explained the standard for an FMLA retaliation claim:
A retaliation claim under the FMLA requires Plaintiff to demonstrate (1) she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to her invocation of rights. The causation element must be considered “with a careful eye to the specific facts and circumstances encountered. Temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action standing alone may create an inference of causality if the proximity is unduly suggestive.
Applying that standard, the court concluded that the officer met the burden of claiming an adverse employment action occurred simply by claiming the termination was retaliatory and providing some evidence to support that claim. The court then noted that the individualized adverse actions that occurred prior to the termination alleged in the complaint further support the plaintiffs retaliation claim. Finally, the court also noted that the claim of disparaging treatment preceding the termination is enough in itself to make an inference that the termination was retaliatory.
