What Do You Think?
FMLA retaliation lawsuits typically come down to whether there’s a causal link between an employee’s exercise of FMLA rights and the employer’s adverse actions, such as termination. In the absence of other compelling evidence of a causal connection, an employer may have a good argument that the two things were not connected by pointing to how much time passed between the employee exercising his rights and the company’s negative action.
A case involving a city water department employee shows how a string of negative actions against an employee over the course of months or years can increase an employer’s exposure liability. The employee in that case took six weeks of approved FMLA leave in August 2023 due to the birth of his child. He was also granted intermittent FMLA leave up until July 1, 2024.
When he returned to work in October 2023, he said, the city began mistreating him. He pointed to the following incidents, among others:
- In April 2024, the employer accused him of theft and forgery. The police investigated and found no evidence.
- In July 2024, he was placed on administrative leave after an alleged altercation with a coworker.
- In March 2025, the employer accused him of pouring bleach into a co-worker’s locker. The employee claimed he had video and witness evidence that would prove his evidence but the company still terminated him in May 2025.
The employer asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the employee did not show that he was fired because he exercised his FMLA rights.
To establish FMLA retaliation, an employee must show that:
- He engaged in a protected activity;
- The employer took a materially adverse action against him; and
- There is a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activity.
A court may find a causal connection when there is a close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action.
Could the employee continue with his case?
A. No. Over a year passed between the theft/forgery accusation and the employee getting fired.
B. Yes. He was taking FMLA around the same time he was accused of crimes and placed on administrative leave.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Mendez v. City of Topeka, No. 25-4065-JWB (D. Kan. 01/16/26), which found the employee established a plausible retaliation case.
For an employment action to be materially adverse, it must be severe enough that it could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. A strong indicator that a challenged employment action is adverse is that the action causes harm to future employment prospects. The court found three actions that qualified:
- The false accusation of crimes in April 2024, which could have hampered his future ability to get a job and harmed his reputation.
- The administrative leave in July 2024, which allegedly harmed him financially.
- The termination in May 2025.
The court rejected the employer’s argument that there was no causal connection because too much time (more than a year) passed between the initial FMLA leave and the termination. The fact is, the employee was subjected to multiple adverse actions over the course of a year, some of which occurred while he was taking leave. Thus, there was not such a long gap between the activity and termination.
“Given the clear overlap of the protected activity and alleged adverse actions, the court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged causation at this stage of the proceedings,” the court said.
It refused to dismiss the case.
