Search form

Liability Risks Do Not End When FMLA Leave Is Over: Retaliation under Family and Medical Leave Act

By Francis P. Alvarez
  • July 19, 2004

It is well known that the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") requires employers to provide unpaid leave to employees for the birth or adoption of a child, to care for a spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition, or because of the employee's own serious health condition. What is less known is that the FMLA also prohibits an employer from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who has taken protected leave under the FMLA. Accordingly, just because an employer has granted an employee twelve weeks of leave under the FMLA does not mean that the employer's risk for liability has been eliminated. An employee who claims that as a result of taking protected FMLA leave, he or she has been subjected to an adverse employment action, such as a demotion or decrease in salary, can sue under the FMLA.  

Interestingly, the statute itself does not contain any prohibition against discrimination or retaliation. Instead, the FMLA makes it unlawful to "interfere" with, "restrain" or "deny" the exercise of or attempt to exercise, rights provided by the Act. However, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), in its Regulations, has read this proscription against discrimination into the statute. The Regulations make it unlawful to "discriminate" against employees who have used FMLA leave or to use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in hiring, promotion decisions, discipline or other employment actions. 29 C.F.R. §825.220(c).  

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Federal Appeals Court covering Long Island) recently issued an opinion recognizing the availability of discrimination or retaliation claims under the FMLA and describing the standard to apply in evaluating such a claim. [Potenza v. City of New York, No. 01-9351 (2d Cir. April 23, 2004)].  

The Second Circuit held that the same standard used for evaluating claims of discrimination under the Title VII claims should apply. In other words, a Plaintiff must prove that: (1) he exercised rights protected under the FMLA; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and, (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.  

In Potenza, the Plaintiff alleged that he was removed from his position because he had taken a one-month medical leave to have surgery; the employer claimed he was removed for performance reasons and efficiency. In finding for the Defendant, the District Court cited the two month difference between the Plaintiff's FMLA leave and his removal as evidence against discrimination. In affirming, the Second Circuit held that while the delay alone was not sufficient to rebut a claim of retaliation, other facts, such as another employee who did not request an FMLA leave and had been removed at the same time was enough to outweigh any inference of discrimination.  

Editor's Note: While the Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Defendant, this decision is important because it now establishes that discrimination claims under the FMLA will be analyzed in the same way as those under Title VII. Accordingly, the same precautions that are taken to avoid liability under Title VII (e.g., ensuring that similarly situated employee are treated the same) apply equally to claims under the FMLA. The case further illustrates that even if an employee receives all the leave to which he or she is entitled under the FMLA, the employee may still face liability for discrimination and retaliation claims.

©2004 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 23, 2019

New York Revises Employment Protections for Domestic Violence Victims, Adds Accommodation Obligations

August 23, 2019

New York has amended its Human Rights Law to expand protection from employment discrimination for victims of domestic violence. Signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on August 20, 2019, the new law amends the New York State Human Rights Law with respect to victims of domestic violence. It also requires employers to provide reasonable... Read More

August 21, 2019

Oregon Governor Signs Paid Family and Medical Leave Law

August 21, 2019

Oregon’s paid family and medical leave law was signed by Governor Kate Brown on August 9, 2019. Eligible workers will be permitted to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave under the new law beginning January 1, 2023. The bill (HB 2005) was passed by the state legislature at the end of June. When the law goes into effect, Oregon will... Read More

August 2, 2019

Puerto Rico Enacts Leave for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Harassment and Assault

August 2, 2019

Employees in Puerto Rico may take up to 15 days of unpaid leave each calendar year to address situations related to domestic or gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual harassment in employment, sexual assault, lewd acts, or felony stalking under a new law. The new “Special Leave” is in addition to any other leave to which the employee... Read More