Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—2d Cir.: Telecom manager, fired after losing large accounts, could not establish FMLA violation, (Dec 1, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

In the months before her discharge, she had taken eight and a half days of paid time off to care for her sick daughter and mother.

A former senior account manager for Orange Business Services, Inc., fired after several of the largest accounts she managed decided to stop using the telecommunications company’s services, failed to establish FMLA interference or retaliation, the Second Circuit affirmed. Although she had taken eight and a half days of paid time off to care for her sick daughter and mother prior to her termination, her supervisor’s criticisms concerning her job performance did not reference her requests for leave, all of which he readily granted, nor was she prejudiced by OBS’s failure to give her notice of her FMLA rights upon learning of her daughter’s illness. Her retaliation claims failed, the appeals court concluded, because OBS terminated her based on performance, not her requests for leave (Haran v. Orange Business Services, Inc., No. 24-2312 (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 2025)).

OBS. Orange Business Services, Inc. (OBS) is an international telecommunications company that primarily sells products and services to multinational corporations. The plaintiff joined OBS as a senior account manager in 2017 to manage accounts headquartered outside the United States—“B-end” accounts. She was successful in her role from 2017 to 2019, and beginning in January 2020, she took on additional responsibility for managing accounts headquartered in the United States—“A-end” accounts.

“Fully successful.” In the account manager’s performance review for the first half of 2020, her supervisor, stated that the year so far “was a challenge for [her] in her new territory.” He noted that she had several challenges working with her new A-end accounts, including issues with her projected revenue and miscommunications with her team and with a client. Although those issues raised the “concern that [[she]] may not be fully understanding feedback, or has not had the time to ‘read between the lines’ regarding indirect or non-verbal cues,” the supervisor nevertheless stated his expectation that, based on her prior performance, her performance for the second half of 2020 “will be on track to meet business objectives.” He thus gave her an overall rating of “fully successful” despite the problems he described.

Time to care for daughter. In October 2020, the account manager’s daughter was diagnosed with a possible tumor in her femur and required surgery. She told the supervisor about this and asked “to take a few days off for [her] daughter’s situation.” He told her to take off the time she needed to “take care of [her] daughter.” Then, over the following three months, the account manager requested leave intermittently and took a total of seven and a half days off to care for her daughter.

Neither the account manager nor her supervisor mentioned the FMLA, and her time off was not treated as FMLA leave. She instead used some of her paid time off.

Additional scrutiny. Around this time, the account manager began receiving more scrutiny at work. The supervisor began to check more regularly on the status of assignments and deals. Much of this scrutiny involved her management of the Pfizer account, which was one of OBS’s largest A-end accounts. OBS wanted to execute a new master agreement with Pfizer, but negotiations stalled because the parties reached an impasse over contractual terms.

The supervisor repeatedly asked the account manager whether she would be able to maintain the pace of her conversations with Pfizer, and a coworker informed her that the supervisor would transfer the Pfizer account to him if she was unable to participate in upcoming conversations.

The account manager felt increased pressure due to the supervisor’s comments and stated that she took less time off to care for her daughter than she otherwise would have. Nobody at OBS, however, made negative comments about her taking time off or discouraged her from taking additional time off.

Three accounts dropped. By the end of 2020, the account manager met her performance objectives for her B-end accounts as well as her annual revenue quota. However, three of her largest A-end accounts, including Pfizer, decided to stop using OBS’s products. Those decisions were in the works before she took responsibility for the accounts, and Pfizer’s decision to end its relationship with OBS was due to OBS’s refusal to accept Pfizer’s requested contractual terms.

“Improvement needed.” In the account manager’s performance review for the second half of 2020, the supervisor gave her an overall rating of “improvement needed.” He wrote that, although she made some progress in building a strategy with her team, she continued to face the same challenges that he had noted in her performance review for the first half of 2020. In particular, he pointed out that her strategy “has not resulted in an increase[] in proposed services” and that “her pipeline velocity is potentially not sufficient to meet her 2021 financial growth objectives.”

According to the account manager, in her performance review meeting, the supervisor also told her that she had a “lack of focus.” She interpreted this comment to refer to her absences due to her daughter’s illness. When she challenged him about this comment, he told her that he meant that she should have been more focused on building relationships with Pfizer to overcome the legal impasse that resulted in losing the account.

Mother’s diagnosis. During this period, her mother was diagnosed with macular degeneration, and on February 12, 2021, the account manager took one day of paid time off to take her mother to a doctor’s appointment. Again, neither she nor the supervisor mentioned the FMLA. Nor did she report any negative response by him to her request for the day off, and she conceded that she was paid for the day.

Discharge. Then, on February 24, 2021, OBS fired her in a meeting attended by the supervisor and an HR representative. The HR representative first said that OBS was terminating her for failing to meet her 2020 quota, but the supervisor clarified that OBS was terminating her because she was not expected to meet her 2021 quota.

Lawsuit and appeal. She sued OBS for interference and retaliation under the FMLA and familial status discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Following discovery, OBS moved for summary judgment on all her claims. A federal district court granted OBS’s motion and dismissed her FMLA interference and retaliation claims. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYCHRL claim, which it dismissed without prejudice. She appealed to the Second Circuit.

FMLA interference and discouragement. Affirming, the appeals court first rejected the former account manager’s argument that OBS engaged in FMLA interference by discouraging her from taking more leave by subjecting her to undue scrutiny and criticism of her job performance after she requested leave. First, it was undisputed that she requested seven and a half days off to take care of her daughter, all of which the supervisor readily granted. Nor did she argue that he ever mentioned her time off or her daughter’s illness in connection with his warnings that “she would be removed from the Pfizer account” if she could not participate in upcoming conversations with Pfizer or improve her performance. Here, the supervisor’s scrutiny and criticism of the account manager were specific to her job performance, particularly her management of the Pfizer account, not her requests for leave, concluded the Second Circuit. “In the absence of any objective evidence that [the supervisor’s] criticism related to her FMLA-eligible absences,” the Second Circuit found, her “subjective feeling of pressure not to take more time off due to her concerns about her performance” was insufficient to show FMLA interference.

No harm, no foul. Her notice-related argument fared similarly. The former account manager simply failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether OBS’s failure to provide notice of her rights under the FMLA caused her prejudice. Instead, the record showed that it did not, according to the appeals court. She did not argue that she was unaware of her rights under the FMLA or dispute that she received a notice of such rights when she joined OBS. Nor did she argue that she would not have felt the pressure and shied away from taking more days off if OBS specifically informed her that she was eligible to take FMLA leave. Indeed, in a February 24, 2021, message to a coworker, she said she “should have taken family medical leave off but [she] didn’t want to let the company down.”

Ultimately, concluded the Second Circuit, the account manager “took the time off she requested without obstruction, and she does not claim that she exhausted her allotted paid time off days.” Any lack of notice thus did not affect her “exercise of or attempt to exercise any substantive right conferred by the [FMLA]” and could not serve as the basis for an FMLA interference claim.

FMLA retaliation. Summary judgment against her FMLA retaliation claim was also appropriate, according to the appeals court. Here, she relied on the same theory as her interference claim: the supervisor’s comments suggested that he disapproved of her taking leave. She argued that a factfinder could infer that she was terminated in retaliation for taking leave because of the supervisor’s negative comments about her “lack of focus,” “in conjunction with a negative performance review and on the heels of scrutinizing and pressuring [her] to perform.” Again, the Second Circuit found, “the district court correctly rejected [her] assertion that [the supervisor’s] criticisms related to her leave.”

Nor did the temporal proximity between her leave and her termination raise a triable issue regarding pretext. Though there was a short gap between her taking one day off to care for her mother on February 12 and her termination on February 24, she took the bulk of the leave at issue—7.5 out of 8.5 days—between October and December of 2020, several months before her termination in February 2021. In addition, the supervisor had first raised concerns about her ability to create and maintain a sales pipeline with A-end accounts in July 2020, several months before she took leave.

NYCHRL claim. Finally, the appeals court concluded that, having properly dismissed the former account manager’s federal law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her NYCHRL claim.

The case is No. 24-2312.

Judge: Park, M.

Attorneys: Michael Taubenfeld (Fisher Taubenfeld) for Patricia Haran. Justin Anthony Guilfoyle (Baker & Hostetler) for Orange Business Services Inc.

Companies: Orange Business Services Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews