In a recent federal lawsuit in Illinois involving the Family Medical Leave Act, an employer had some hurdles to overcome to defend its termination decision. It was alleged that the employer, among other things, had switched stories at different times about the reason for terminating, and presented supporting documents that were backdated. All this and more helped bolster the plaintiff/employee’s credibility in bringing his case.
The Family Medical Leave Act is supposed to protect employees from losing their jobs when they have serious health issues. They are guaranteed 12 weeks of leave to deal with these conditions. In this case, the plaintiff’s upcoming surgery qualified under the law.
He was entitled to the time off of work, and to the protection from being fired for taking the time. But soon after he notified his employer that he would need to have a medical leave for surgery, the employee found out that he was terminated. It was known that an employee would have to be let go because of budget cuts, so the fact of his termination alone might not raise any eyebrows.
However, the decision as to which employee would be affected had a last-minute shift. And that last minute took place after the employer was told that the plaintiff needed the time off for surgery. Originally, another employee was slated to have his job eliminated in the budget cut. But only after the leave came to light, was the plaintiff then the target of the job elimination.
The timing of these actions could sound suspicious enough, that the termination was because of the leave. But the other factors that were involved made it look even worse to try to defend the employer’s decision. First, there was the clashing of multiple explanations for the firing decision. And second, there was the backdated memo. The original notes of a meeting about who to terminate were shredded. In their place, was a new, typed memo that was alleged to have been backdated.
So while there could be a reasonable explanation for each of these events, the scenario as a whole certainly helps this employee to make a case to a jury that he lost his job for exercising what should have been a protected right: to take a leave from work to take care of a serious health issue.
Rights such as those under the Family Medical Leave Act are put in place to protect us when we need it most. Unfortunately, those rights are not always respected, and the courts are there to help enforce them.
