Employee failed to establish causal connection between FMLA request and termination from employment where compelling evidence that employee engaged in terminable offense severed any purported causal chain for purposes of his FMLA retaliation claim.

The employee alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for requesting FMLA leave—namely, that he requested and was "on" intermittent FMLA leave and was terminated two weeks following his leave request. There, on the day the employee was terminated, he failed to "punch-in" to work and advised his supervisor that he arrived to work 15 minutes prior to his shift beginning. As a result, the supervisor contacted the human resources department to obtain a "leader's excuse" to correct the employee's arrival time. However, the human resources department requested that the supervisor speak to the employee's co-workers to determine the employee's arrival time. Following the supervisor's investigation and the human resource director's separate investigation, it was determined that the employee falsified his arrival time on that day. Accordingly, the employee's employment was terminated.

Thereafter, the employee filed a lawsuit, alleging his termination was retaliation for requesting FMLA leave and that his supervisor harbored discriminatory animus against him for taking leave. The court, however, disagreed with the employee and dismissed his claims. Specifically, the court expressly noted that the two-week gap between the employee's FMLA request and his termination was insufficient to establish a causal connection between the two. In addition, the court expressly noted that, between the time the employee requested leave and the time when his employment was terminated, "compelling evidence surfaced" to suggest that he lied about his arrival time on the date of his termination and the "Third Circuit has recognized that a significant event arising between the time when a plaintiff engages in protected activity and his or her termination can sever the causal chain." Finally, the court found it notable that the individual who made the decision to terminate the employee's employment was unaware of his prior request for FMLA and that the employee's argument that the supervisor "acted as the 'cat's paw' to influence the termination….falls flat."

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012