Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on FMLA interference and retaliation claims. Paris v. McAllister Machinery Co., Inc., No. 25-1726 (6th Cir. 5-14-26). The employee could not prevail on the FMLA interference claim because he could not show that he suffered a serious health condition with hospitalization or consulting with a medical provider about his mental distress. While he could show that his inquiries about taking FMLA leave for his mental distress were protected activities, and were temporally proximate to his termination less than a month later, he could not show that his termination was pretextual when he was already on a Last Chance Agreement and his violation of any policies justified his termination. Temporal proximity could not satisfy his need to prove the employer’s explanation was pretextual.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff employee had a long history of performance problems and was ultimately placed on a Last Chance Agreement in October 2018 to avoid being immediately terminated. He was then told by his union steward in early December that he was about to be fired. His supervisor a few weeks later confronted him about not wearing steel-toes shoes during his shift. He denied the allegation, which prompted the supervisor to try and stomp on his foot to prove his point. Upset, he called HR and said he needed time off for anxiety, anguish and mental distress. They discussed him applying for FMLA and he asked for the forms so that he could do so. However, despite the passage of a month between this event and his termination, he never sought medical care or treatment for his distress and he never submitted a formal request for FMLA leave after receiving the forms upon request. He was then fired in mid-January 2019 for a variety of infractions over the last few months, including not wearing required protective clothing, overcharging customers, and general inability to follow proper procedures.
The Court agreed that he could not prevail on an FMLA
interference claim because he had never sought medical treatment of any kind
for his mental anguish. Without such
treatment or medical consultation, he could not prove that he had a serious
health condition and was entitled to take FMLA leave. No jury could rule in his favor on such a
claim, entitling the employer to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The Court also agreed that he could not prevail on his FMLA retaliation
claim, but for different reasons than the trial court. The Court agreed that his inquiries about
taking FMLA leave and requesting the FMLA forms constituted protected conduct
and that his termination approximately a month later could support a causal
connection between the two (i.e., temporal proximity). However, he could not show that the employer’s
explanation for his termination – poor performance and violation of company
policy in violation of his Last Chance Agreement – was pretextual. He had been told by the union before
his protected conduct that he was about to be fired for violating the Last
Chance Agreement. The employer specified a number of incidents and violations
which took place in the few months before his termination that violated his
Last Chance Agreement. “We agree with [the
employer] that a single violation of [its] policies following [the plaintiff’s]
entry into the LCA would have constituted a valid, nondiscriminatory reason for
his termination.”
[He] then failed to carry the
burden of showing that any of [the employer’s] reasons were “in reality a
pretext to mask discrimination.” . . . .
He failed to do so because he provided no evidence that [its] termination was
pretextual. . . . And temporal proximity alone cannot support a
showing of pretext. . . . There is no genuine issue of material fact as
to whether [its] termination of [his] employment was pretextual, and [it] was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on [his] FMLA retaliation claim.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert
you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
