FMLA Case Highlights Obligation to Adjust Performance Expectations

Takeaway: A federal appeals court’s decision underscores the fact that employers need to adjust their performance expectations for employees during approved FMLA leave. HR professionals should review their policies and practices to ensure compliance with FMLA regulations and consider the potential impact on performance evaluations during and soon after approved leave periods.

A significant decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has crucial implications for employers’ responsibilities under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The ruling emphasizes the need for employers to adjust performance expectations for employees on approved FMLA leave.

A former employee of OSF HealthCare System (OSF) filed a lawsuit claiming that the Illinois-based health care provider violated her rights under the FMLA by not reasonably adjusting its performance expectations to reflect her reduced hours while she was on leave.

Not only did she have to meet unadjusted deadlines despite less time in the office, she testified, but her employer dramatically increased her workload by requiring her unit to absorb two acquired hospitals in four months. Moreover, certain goals required the help of a mentor, which she never received. Goals she did not meet depended on coordination with others outside her authority or control.

OSF defended its actions, asserting that it justifiably terminated the plaintiff for not meeting performance expectations outlined in a performance improvement plan (PIP) established upon her return.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant after determining the plaintiff failed to show a causal nexus between the exercise of her FMLA rights and her termination. Under the FMLA, an employer that terminates an employee who takes FMLA leave for failing to meet performance standards that are not adjusted to account for their leave may be engaging in unlawful interference with leave or retaliation.

The appellate court highlighted a genuine dispute over the amount of approved leave the plaintiff took. The plaintiff claimed approximately six weeks of continuous and intermittent leave between October 2018 and April 2019, while OSF’s testimony suggested only around 10 days. Such a significant difference surrounding a material fact that could impact the outcome of the case can only be resolved by a jury, the court ruled.

The 7th Circuit acknowledged that a crucial element in FMLA cases is establishing a causal connection between an employee’s use of leave and their termination. The court considered the implementation of a PIP a month after the plaintiff stopped taking leave. According to the record, the defendant did not tell the employee that poor performance generated the need for a PIP, nor that deficiencies would result in a discharge.

The appeals court questioned whether OSF’s reliance on the PIP was pretextual, emphasizing that a jury should decide the sincerity of OSF’s motivations. Therefore, the court vacated the decision and remanded the case for trial.

Wayland v. OSF HealthCare System, 7th Cir., 23-1541 (Feb. 28, 2024).

Anne Woodworth, J.D., is a freelance writer in Laurel, Md.