The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal law that grants eligible employees the right to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons. Filing FMLA lawsuits might have become more difficult now. In the past, employees only had to show that taking FMLA leave was one factor in an employer’s decision to discipline or terminate them. However, a recent decision, Lapham v. Walgreen Co., now requires employees to prove that retaliation was the sole reason for the adverse action, making it much harder to win these cases for the employees. Employers have often struggled with situations where last-minute absences disrupt operations. For example, if an employee with approved intermittent FMLA leave calls out at the start of a shift, the employer cannot require them to find a replacement. Instead, the employer must either scramble to cover the shift or require the remaining staff—including the manager—to take on extra work. This often leads to frustration and resentment, which employees have cited in retaliation claims. Before Lapham, those claims were easier to prove.
This shift in legal standards follows the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chevron, which limited courts’ reliance on government agencies’ interpretations of labor laws. Since then, courts have been re-evaluating how they apply FMLA retaliation claims. Some believe that more courts will adopt the stricter “but-for” causation standard from Lapham, giving employers a stronger defense. While legal standards are still evolving, employers facing FMLA lawsuits may now have better odds of success. Moving forward, employers should review their FMLA policies and ensure managers are trained to handle leave requests appropriately. If you have questions about FMLA compliance or legal risks, feel free to contact us at info@mnklawyers.com.
