Back to Currents - Employment Law Blog

Lessons Learned – Engaging in Protected Activity Does Not Shield An Employee From Termination

June 9, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law

Navigating the FMLA, the ADA, and a myriad of state laws poses challenges for even the most knowledgeable HR professional. But as one court recently reminded us in Ibewuike v. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, employers can hold employees accountable for misconduct (such as violating leave policies) unless of course, it would be reasonable, under the facts and circumstances of the particular situation, to excuse the misconduct. In Ibewuike, the employee applied for leave under the FMLA in connection with the anticipated birth of her child. Johns Hopkins approved her request. Ibewuike then experienced complications with her pregnancy, and amended her FMLA request to cover absences in connection with the complications. Johns Hopkins approved that request, too. Just prior to exhausting her FMLA leave, Ibewuike’s manager sent her a letter, advising Ibewuike that she could apply for a medical leave of absence (since Ibewuike had used most of her available FMLA prior to the birth of her child due to the complications associated with her pregnancy). Pursuant to John Hopkins’ leave of absence policy, employees were prohibited from engaging in paid employment during the period of leave, without prior written permission from their manager. Despite this prohibition, Ibewuike accepted employment with another hospital, and when Johns Hopkins found out about it, it promptly terminated Ibewuike’s employment. Ibewuike then sued John Hopkins, under a variety of statutes, including the FMLA. As to her FMLA retaliation claim, the court found that Ibewuike could not prove that her termination was pretextual because she admitted that she accepted paid employment with another hospital, which was specifically prohibited by the applicable leave policy. The lesson learned here – albeit a reminder – is that employees who engage in protected activity enjoy no greater protection than employees who have not engaged in protected activity. Put another way, they are not shielded from adverse employment actions just because they have exercised their rights under an applicable statute. With that said, before taking an adverse employment action, it is advisable to consult with your legal counsel because some courts find that timing alone is sufficient to establish pretext.

RELATED TOPICS

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act Turns 50

‘You’re Doing a Great Job Brownie, er Comey . . . and You’re...

A U.S. Supreme Court ADA Showdown Is A-Brewin’: Eleventh Circuit Contradicts Seventh Circuit Regarding Non-Competitive Mandatory Reassignments

December 14, 2016 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law

Employee Who Threatened to Shoot His Colleagues with a Shotgun Not a “Qualified Individual” For the Purposes of Oregon’s Disability Statute, Says Ninth Circuit

October 12, 2015 | Employee Health Issues, Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law

This Should Go Without Saying: An Employee Who Is Only Potentially Qualified for FMLA Leave Is Not Actually Qualified For Leave

April 1, 2014 | Employee Health Issues, Currents - Employment Law

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Analyzes the History of the ADAAA and Remands Case Involving “Temporary Disability” to District Court

January 24, 2014 | Employee Health Issues, Currents - Employment Law

Southern District of New York Denies ADA & FMLA Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment & Instead Grants Summary Judgment For Employer

August 17, 2012 | Employee Health Issues, Currents - Employment Law

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center