Employer fires employee who asked for FMLA and wins its case

April 29, 2026

Angie received generally positive feedback for her work until Brenda, a new supervisor, took over in August 2020. Within months, Angie claimed she started to receive unfounded criticism and oversight at work.

In January 2021, Brenda put Angie on a performance improvement plan (PIP). When the PIP ended, Brenda told Angie that she wasn’t successful in making improvements and suspended Angie for 1 day.

On June 2, Angie took leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). When she returned on June 23, things changed:

Her supervisory responsibilities had shifted to the new manager,
A project she had been working on was placed on hold, and
She was assigned to work on a different project.

In early July, the employer suspended Angie for 5 days as a result of a post-PIP meeting between Angie, Brenda, and HR regarding her job performance.

In August, Angie gave two project-related presentations that didn’t go well. In September, Brenda put Angie on administrative leave and told her that the company intended to terminate her.

On November 4, Brenda put Angie on administrative leave. On November 12, Angie asked for FMLA leave again, but the employer denied it because of its termination decision. Angie’s last day of work was November 22, 2021.

Employee sues

Angie sued, claiming that the employer violated her FMLA rights; that the leave constituted a ‘negative factor’ in the employer’s termination decision.

The employer argued that the brief time between Angie’s second leave request in November and the termination wasn’t enough, by itself, to be FMLA interference. It also argued that it had substantial evidence that Angie’s termination was in the works long before her November FMLA leave request.

The court rules

The court agreed with the employer. By the time Angie submitted her second FMLA leave request in November, she had already been subject to a PIP, been suspended twice, met with her supervisors at least twice regarding her work performance, been placed on administrative leave, and been informed of the company’s intent to terminate her.

Tomlinson v. City of Portland, District of Oregon, No. 23-cv-188, April 26, 2026.

Key to remember: When an employer has strong documented evidence of an employee’s poor job performance, it can help overcome a claim that it violated the FLMA.

Publish Date

April 29, 2026

Author

Darlene Clabault

Type

Industry News

Industries

{not populated}