Employers are sometimes faced with the challenge of how to discipline workers who have recently taken job-protected leave.  For example, managers may feel that their hands are tied when it comes to disciplining an employee who has returned from leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit indicates that the analysis on whether to proceed with discipline is often more nuanced and should be carefully considered, perhaps in consultation with legal counsel or other HR experts.

 

In Tibbs v. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment against an Administrative Assistant who was suspended for misconduct the day she returned from FMLA leave and terminated after skipping a disciplinary meeting.  The employee, Autumn Tibbs, worked as a judicial assistant in the Illinois court system.  While she worked for Judge Richard Mitchell, the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, her daily work was supervised by Judge Leslie Graves, who presided over the county where Tibbs worked.

 

Tibbs took FMLA leave on two occasions in the period leading up to her September 2012 termination.  She first took leave between March and May of 2011 and then again between June and August of 2012.  The day she returned from her second leave, Judge Graves gave her a letter informing her that she was being placed on administrative suspension pending a disciplinary meeting with Judge Mitchell.  The letter informed Tibbs that she was subject to discipline for misconduct including changing the court reporter assignment process without permission, going over Judge Graves head to address her return to full-time work after her first FMLA leave with Judge Mitchell instead, and disregarding a directive by Judge Graves that another employee would handle certain work tasks moving forward.

 

The letter informed Tibbs that she would have the opportunity to respond to the allegations at her meeting with Judge Mitchell, and warned her that the meeting would occur regardless of whether she chose to attend it.  Tibbs sent Judge Mitchell a letter informing him that she would not attend the meeting.  She did not respond to any of the misconduct allegations listed in her suspension letter.  Judge Mitchell decided to discharge her after she skipped the meeting and failed to address any of the allegations raised against her.  She was terminated in September of 2012.

 

Tibbs subsequently filed suit, claiming that her discharge occurred in retaliation for taking FMLA leave.  The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging in part that there were no genuine issues of material fact necessitating a trial on whether her termination was retaliatory.  The district court granted the employer's motion, and Tibbs appealed that decision.  In deciding to affirm the lower court's grant of summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that while the timing of termination was suspicious, it was not sufficient in itself to raise a genuine issue of material fact.  Instead, the court noted, Tibbs would need to present other evidence that the reasons proffered for her termination were pretextual to proceed with her claim.  Tibbs failed to provide any evidence "tending to prove that the employer's proffered reasons are factually baseless, were not the actual motivation for the discharge in question, or were insufficient to motivate the termination."  Her disagreement with the reasons for her discharge was insufficient to justify a trial in this matter.  As such, the court concluded that summary judgment was proper on her retaliation claim and affirmed the lower court's decision.