Some lawsuits are based on just a few careless comments from a supervisor. That’s especially true in cases involving employees who take time off under the
Managers who refer to these problems as “distractions” and comment on their impact on the workplace are inviting employees to sue for retaliation or interference with their .
Recent case: Benjamin Erickson worked as a train conductor and applied for a training program that would end in a promotion to engineer. Erickson had used a few years earlier when his mother became ill, and later when he developed skin cancer.
Erickson should have completed the training program in 26 weeks, but because his mother again became ill, he took more FMLA leave. Then, he contacted the company about suffering from attention-deficit disorder and depression.
The railroad extended his training program by the amount of time he took for FMLA leave. However, his immediate supervisor began making negative comments. He asked Erickson whether he was “finally done with the FMLA.” He also referred to Erickson’s “personal problems” as a “distraction.” Erickson then called in sick, missing the last day of his training. The railroad booted him from the program.
Erickson sued, alleging that he had been punished for taking FMLA leave. The court, after hearing about the supervisor’s comments, ordered a trial. It wrote that the personal problems referenced “aren’t distractions, they are part of the reason [Erickson] took FMLA leave.” Treating such personal problems so casually could demonstrate that the company resented his FMLA leave and that resentment entered into its decision to expel him from the training program on the last day. (Erickson v. Canadian Pacific Railway, No. 06-3734, DC MN, 2008)
- Take-it-or-leave-it arbitration clause is fine if the underlying agreement is fair
- Are there alternatives to noncompetes for employees who work in California?
- The new tax law: What's in it for you and your business
- New York amends Human Rights Law to protect unpaid interns
- Can you give inferior benefits to disabled retirees? Courts split