Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCHARGE—N.D. Ill.: Decisionmakers’ lack of knowledge of employee’s depression and need for FMLA leave dooms his lawsuit, (Apr 8, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Before his supervisors recommended his performance-related termination, he only relayed that he would miss work because he was “not feeling well,” and not that his new medication for depression had made him feel sick.

Morningstar, Inc. won’t face trial on a former program manager’s lawsuit alleging his termination was unlawful under the ADA and the FMLA since he did not make the decisionmakers aware of his mental impairment or request medical leave until after they had already recommended that he be terminated due to his well-documented performance issues. Thus, it was inconceivable that his FMLA request or perceived disability led to his termination, a federal district court in Illinois ruled in dismissing his claims on summary judgment (Daniels v. Morningstar, Inc., No. 24-cv-00289 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2025)).

Performance issues. In May 2022, the employee began working for Morningstar, Inc. as a program manager in the data products group. On March 27, 2023, his supervisor sent him an email that identified performance deficiencies that were previously discussed with him directed him to create an action plan for improvement, which he did. On April 25, his supervisor sent him a performance coaching plan (PCP) that identified areas of improvement and actions to be taken over the next 30 days, and which was continuously updated throughout the summer.

The employee continued to have performance issues and on July 27, his supervisor warned him that failure to demonstrate improvement could result in a formal warning or termination. Less than a week later, his supervisor and a business partner met with him to discuss his performance. In a follow-up email, his supervisor identified six bullet points where she expected to see immediate and consistent improvement and again warned him that failure to meet expectations could result in termination.

Performance improvement plan. On August 29, his supervisor informed him that he was still not meeting performance expectations. Four days later, she and the business partner met with him and placed him on a formal performance improvement plan (PIP) that detailed three areas of performance deficiency, provided examples of unsatisfactory performance in each area, and identified actions he was expected to take. The PIP also warned failure to improve could result in “further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.”

Termination decision. During the week of September 4, his supervisor received additional feedback from another manager who stated he had become a liability and requested his removal from the project. Based on this feedback, his supervisor and the business partner recommended his termination, with has last day worked being September 14 or 15.

Calls in sick. The employee claimed that during this time he was suffering from severe depression and anxiety, prompting him to seek medical attention on September 8, 2023. His doctor diagnosed him with depression, started him on prescription medication, and spoke to him about options for psychiatric treatment. The new medication caused him to experience fatigue and nausea, and on Sunday, September 10, he sent an email to his supervisor, stating “I am not feeling well, and I anticipate that I will be able to return Wednesday. However, I will check-in with you on Tuesday with an update.”

Doctor’s note. He was absent from work on September 11 and 12, and his supervisor interpreted his email as his opting to take a sick day for a routine, minor illness. On September 12, he uploaded a note from his doctor to the HR system which stated that, “[The employee] has been ill and unable to attend work. He contacted our office, and he was advised regarding his symptoms. He should be excused from work on 9/11/23 and 9/12/23.”

Termination recommended. Meanwhile, in the afternoon on September 12, his supervisor and the business partner sent an email to two higher level execs recommending that the employee be terminated which was approved that evening. When he returned to work on September 13, his supervisor emailed him an invitation for a meeting scheduled for the following day. That same day, he attended a medical appointment with his primary care provider, who agreed that he should seek three weeks (and possibly six weeks) of daily, intensive treatment.

Later that same day, the employee submitted an FMLA leave request to the employer’s third-party FMLA administrator which stated that he had been on FMLA leave since September 11 (even though he worked that day). He also emailed his supervisor and the business partner and advised them for the first time of his need for a medical leave of absence, stating: “I need to explore a medical leave at this time. I am working on collecting the necessary paperwork from my medical partners. We can discuss further on the call you have scheduled for tomorrow.” The following day, on September 14, the managers informed him of the decision to terminate his employment.

Not perceived as disabled. The employee’s ADA claim failed since there was no evidence that the employer had any knowledge of his medical condition or otherwise perceived him as disabled before deciding to terminate his employment. Rather, it was undisputed that the only information he provided about his medical conditions prior to the decision were in the September 10 email to his supervisor and the doctor’s note uploaded to the HR system on September 12, neither of which explicitly stated that he suffered from severe anxiety and depression.

It would be unreasonable to conclude that these communications provided a basis for the employer to regard him as having a disability since they merely suggested that he was suffering from “a minor, transitory illness that would not alert the employer to any alleged disability,” stated the court. The communications also did not provide any record of an impairment let alone suggest he suffered from an impairment that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities. “To the contrary, the communications suggest a routine sick day, nothing more.”

FMLA interference. To support his FMLA interference claim, the employee alleged that he was terminated three days after he was placed on FMLA leave. But his allegations were inaccurate since he submitted his FMLA request to the FMLA administrator on September 13. Though he stated in the request that he had been off work for FMLA since September 11, that would have been impossible since he worked on both September 13 and September 14.

Furthermore, he did not inform his supervisor or any other manager that he needed to explore a leave of absence until September 13—a day after the decision to terminate him had already been made. “The timeline shows that Plaintiff’s request for medical leave was made after the termination recommendation was approved making it inconceivable that Plaintiff’s FMLA request led to his termination,” stated the court.

The case is No. 24-cv-00289.

Judge: Coleman, S.

Attorneys: Richard J. Gonzalez, Chicago-Kent College of Law, for Thomas Daniels. William R. Pokorny (Franczek P.C.) for Morningstar Inc.

Companies: Morningstar, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Discharge IllinoisNews