Like most other nondiscrimination and worker protection laws, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) bars employers from retaliating against individuals for taking protected leave or otherwise interfering with their exercise of FMLA-protected rights. In a case examining the scope of these protections, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held recently that an employer’s suspiciously-timed (and poorly explained) decision to temporarily reduce the work hours of an employee returning from protected leave was enough to warrant reinstatement of her claims of unlawful retaliation and interference.
In Jones v. Aaron’s, Inc., No. 17-14298 (11th Cir. September 4, 2018), the plaintiff claimed that her employer unilaterally (albeit temporarily) reduced her work hours from 40 to 32 – essentially converting her from a full-time to part-time employee for a period of two weeks – in retaliation for her having taken FMLA leave during the preceding two-week period. She also claimed that the hours reduction amounted to unlawful interference with her FMLA rights, which entitle employees returning from leave to be restored to their previous position “with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.”
Even though the facts show that the plaintiff was later terminated for cause, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court and sent the case back for further consideration, finding that the close proximity between the plaintiff’s leave and her temporary reduction in hours upon her return to work, coupled with the employer’s weak justification, may have constituted unlawful retaliation and interference with her FMLA rights.
A copy of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Jones v. Aaron’s is available here.
Members of the Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC) can read more here.