An employer did not engage in discrimination under the Family and Medical Leave Act when it fired an employee for performance issues, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held, at a time when the employee also was using intermittent FMLA leave. The court noted that the company never wavered from its claim that it fired the employee because she made multiple errors within a short period of time.
The court upheld the district court’s ruling that the employee failed to make a causal connection between her use of FMLA leave and her firing, or to prove that the company’s reason for termination —multiple shipping errors within a 17-day period — was a pretext for discrimination. The case is Burciago v. Ravago Americas LLC, 2015 WL 4032152 (8th Cir., July 2, 2015).
Facts of the Case
Elizabeth Burciaga began working for Ravago Americas, LLC in 2007 as a customer service representative. Her tasks included contacting sales representatives and customers, receiving and processing orders, scheduling shipments and resolving customer issues. In 2008 and 2010, she requested and was granted FLMA leave for the births of her two children. Following her return from each approved leave, she remained employed and received annual raises.
In 2011, Burciaga began to have performance issues, including taking a longer than normal lunch break and mistakenly sending a shipment twice. Her supervisor warned Burciaga that if errors continued, she might be terminated.
In July 2012, Burciaga requested and was granted intermittent FMLA leave to care for her son. The supervisor granted Burciaga time off when she requested it, and allowed her flexibility with her schedule so she could attend medical appointments. Burciaga took three half-day leaves between Aug. 8 and Sept. 6, 2012.
Then, beginning Sept. 10, 2012, and over the next few weeks, Burciaga made a series of shipping errors — shorting an order entry by 7,500 pounds, shipping material under the wrong customer number and twice shipping the wrong material to a customer, including once when she failed to discern between two of her own customers. On Sept. 28, 2012, Ravago terminated Burciaga for her performance errors.
Burciaga filed a lawsuit, claiming that she was fired based on her FMLA leave. Finding that Burciaga failed to establish a causal connection between her FMLA leave and her firing, or to show sufficient evidence that the company’s stated reason for the termination was a pretext for discrimination, the federal district court ruled in the company’s favor. Burciaga appealed.
Court’s Analysis
To prove a discrimination claim, an employee must prove that the employer’s adverse action against the employee was motivated by the employee’s exercise of his or her FMLA rights. However, using FMLA leave does not give an employee any greater protection against termination for reasons not related to the FMLA.
The 8th Circuit upheld the lower court’s findings that Burciaga failed to make a prima facie case for discrimination. She could not show sufficient evidence, beyond the timing of the adverse action, that there was a causal connection between her use of leave and her termination from work. Temporal proximity alone is insufficient to establish a connection between the two events.
Even if Burciaga had established a prima facie case for FMLA discrimination, the court determined that she lacked the evidence to show that Ravago’s non-discriminatory explanation for firing her — excessive shipping errors in a 17-day period — was pretextual:
- other employees who Burciaga claimed had made shipping errors were not similarly situated because they were not as experienced, and had not made as many errors in such a short amount of time;
- Burciaga took FMLA leave on two prior occasions and her supervisor allowed her the flexibility to rearrange her schedule and take time off of work without repercussions or any comments about Burciaga’s need to take FMLA leave, suggesting that the company was not hostile to the protected activity; and
- the company’s explanation for Burciaga’s firing remained constant and unwavering throughout the process, heavily weighing against a finding of pretext in the court’s view.
Employer Takeaway
Just because an employee requests or is granted FMLA leave does not grant the employee any greater protection against termination or other discipline for reasons unrelated to the FMLA leave. However, if an employer determines that disciplinary action against an employee is necessary, the decision and action must be accurately documented. In this case, the company’s clear and convincing documentation of the employee’s errors was a major factor in court’s determination that there was no pretext in the termination decision.