Say you’re just about to terminate an employee but he throws down an EEO trump card, like a request for FMLA leave. Ugg! If only you could have beat him by a few seconds. Then the firing wouldn’t look like retaliation for his FMLA leave.
But a new court ruling says not to worry. If you have a very legitimate reason for firing an employee, even after he requests FMLA leave, you can safely crumble up his trump card and toss it in the shredder …
Case in Point: Robert Edwards worked as a branch manager at a Pennsylvania bank. One spring, he requested FMLA leave for double knee replacement surgery scheduled for the upcoming fall. The bank granted the medical leave three months in advance of the operation.
But over the next several months, the bank initiated an embezzlement investigation. The investigation revealed that a head teller at Edwards's branch had embezzled about $570,000 over several years. The bad news for Edwards: The investigation discovered that required monthly audits of the vault and the teller’s drawer hadn’t been performed in years. But a bank assistant manager had falsely reported that those audits were conducted.
Edwards submitted a signed statement saying he had no responsibility for audit mistakes and false reports. Still, Edwards was suspended without pay pending a further investigation. After much consideration, the bank fired Edwards “based on the situation at hand.”
Edwards, of course, sued the bank, saying the firing was interference with his FMLA rights. The bank countered by arguing that it had a legitimate business reason for terminating Edwards and noted that the FMLA only prohibits “illegitimate” interference with an employee's FMLA rights. (
Edwards v. Harleysville Nat'l Bank, E.D. Pa., 10/14/08).
What happened next and what lessons can be learned?Both a lower court and an appeals court sided with the bank, tossing out the case. The appeals court noted that, “An employee does not obtain protection from discharge for performance-related reasons simply because he has requested FMLA leave … Edwards should not automatically be granted some greater degree of protection simply because he happened to have requested FMLA leave.”
3 Lessons Learned …Without Going To Court1. The EEO trump card does not always trump. This case is a great example of courts doing the right thing and standing by employers who make sound business decisions based on legitimate business needs, even in light of EEO obligations. But, be careful to do #2 and #3!
2. Investigate thoroughly. The courted recognized the bank’s thorough investigation and thoughtful process that went into its decision to fire an employee who had requested FMLA leave. The decision was not made lightly or quickly.
3. Document heavily. Employers can expect to be sued if they fire employees who exercise their rights under the EEO laws. In this case, the investigation was well documented. The court recognized that if closing your eyes to bank embezzlement isn’t a good enough reason to terminate an employee, what is?
Mindy is a nationally recognized authority in EEO laws and is a contributing editor to the HR Specialist: Employment Law
monthly newsletter. She is highly regarded for her workplace compliance
training that “clicks and sticks,” because it is practical and
memorable. She is also the coauthor of the American Bar Association’s
bestseller and authority on civil rights training, “Case Dismissed! Taking Your Harassment Prevention Training to Trial."