Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—8th Cir.: Engineering technician, terminated during FMLA leave, failed to establish interference, (Jul 29, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

In late 2022, the technician’s father passed away, and he began to struggle with depression.

A process engineering technician for Cambria Company, LLC, terminated in a two-person reduction in force about six weeks after he requested FMLA leave while struggling with depression following the death of his father, failed to show that the employer unlawfully engaged in FMLA interference, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Cambria articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions: it terminated him because its Chief Research Officer and other “leaders at the plant” were looking to reduce employee headcount, they did not need two process engineering technicians, and his coworker was more senior than he; and the technician could not establish pretext (Knight v. Cambria Co., LLC, No. 25-3464 (8th Cir. July 28, 2026)).

Process engineering technician. In 2021, Cambria hired the employee as a process engineering technician. His main duty was to assist Cambria’s only other process engineering technician in maintaining and improving production line functionality. The latter had been at Cambria for roughly a decade longer than the employee. Both reported to the leader of Cambria’s process technology area who, in turn, reported to Cambria’s Chief Research Officer (CRO).

Death of father and FMLA leave. In late 2022, the employee’s father died, and he began to struggle with depression. His direct supervisor suggested that he consider taking FMLA leave, and in February 2023, the employee requested and received approval to take FMLA leave until April 2023.

Elimination of position. Then, in mid-March, about six weeks after he requested leave, Cambria terminated his employment. In a letter to him, the supervisor explained that the employee’s “position ha[d] been eliminated.”

OWBPA disclosure. Cambria provided him with a disclosure, pursuant to the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA), stating that Cambria had selected him for “reduction” because he had a “shorter period of employment” than other employees. The OWBPA disclosure also stated that a 67-year-old employee had also been selected for the reduction in force (RIF). The disclosure stated that both the plaintiff and the other employee had the job title of “Plant Operations.”

Work “shifted,” nobody new hired. After Cambria terminated the employee, it “shifted” his workload to another department. And although Cambria had kept a job posting open since September 2022 for a “process engineering technician,” Cambria never interviewed any candidates and closed the posting in April 2023 without hiring anyone.

Lawsuit and discovery. The employee sued Cambria, alleging violations of the FMLA, and during discovery, Cambria identified the CRO as the decisionmaker behind the elimination of his position. In November 2024, the CRO provided deposition testimony, explaining that in late 2022 and early 2023, he and other “leaders in the plant” were “consistently looking at our head count and evaluating ways that we might be able to reduce it.”

Declining volumes, seniority-based decision. The CRO explained that by the end of 2022, “our volumes were reducing and we were anticipating an even further reduction,” and that by March 2023, Cambria did not need two process engineering technicians. “I remember discussing at the time that... we’d be able to get through the work that we needed to get done using... one person instead of two,” he added. The CRO emphasized that these discussions were “person-to-person... in-person meetings.” He also explained that the decision to terminate the employee instead of his coworker, Cambria’s other process engineering technician, was based “solely on seniority.”

Knowledge of FMLA leave? When asked whether he had known that the employee had requested FMLA leave, the CRO responded, “I don’t think—I believe I did understand that at the time, that there was a Family Medical Leave Act request out there.”

In a post-deposition errata sheet, however, the CRO changed that answer to: “while [the technician] was employed by Cambria[,] I did not know there was a Family Medical Leave Act request out there.” Later in his deposition, the CRO elaborated, “I did know that he had some attendance issues, yes. I didn’t understand it to be a leave, I don’t believe.” The CRO added, “like I said, I don’t believe that I knew at the time about the leave.”

The OWBPA disclosure and the other termination? During the CRO’s deposition, the employee’s counsel showed him the OWBPA disclosure that Cambria had given the technician, which stated that Cambria had also terminated a 67-year-old employee in the RIF. The CRO said he had first seen the OWBPA disclosure the morning of the deposition and that he was “not sure” whether Cambria terminated a 67-year-old employee at the same time as the technician. When asked whether there was “a 67-year-old let go from within your area of reporting,” the CRO replied “I don’t believe so,” and then elaborated that there were “a handful of different management structures within [plant operations]... so could have been someone who had nothing to do with me.” About two weeks after the CRO’s deposition, Cambria’s counsel notified the technician’s counsel that the 67-year-old employee listed in the OWBPA disclosure had been a vice president who had reported to the CRO.

Additional testimony. The technician’s coworker, his supervisor, and Cambria’s CHRO also provided deposition testimony. The coworker stated that Cambria “went from two process engineering technicians to one” because “there wasn’t enough work to keep two process engineers busy full-time.”

The supervisor similarly, stated that he had told the CRO in 2023, before the technician was terminated, that Cambria could complete its project workload with only one full-time process engineering technician.

The CHRO testified that she was unaware of any “company mandate” or “directive” from “the top levels of management” in March 2023 to reduce employee headcount. She also testified that she required Cambria’s management to document how they decided whom to terminate in a RIF. For example, she would require management to provide “performance-related documents,” “[w]ork area documents,” and documents indicating “whether or not we had work in the area.”

No other documentation. Other than the OWBPA disclosure and the supervisor’s termination letter to the technician, Cambria did not identify any other documents from late 2022 or early 2023 that explained its reasons for terminating the technician.

Present appeal. Cambria moved for summary judgment, the district court granted Cambria’s motion, and the technician appealed.

FMLA discrimination and entitlement. The appeals court initially noted that the FMLA entitles certain eligible employees to take leave from work. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1). It provides that employers may not “interfere with, restrain, or deny” this protected leave. This prohibition enables “discrimination” claims and “entitlement” claims, according to the Eighth Circuit, and the technician brought both.

Discrimination. Beginning with the FMLA discrimination claim, the appeals court found that, even assuming, without deciding, that the technician could establish a prima facie case, his claim still failed. Cambria had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions: it terminated him because the CRO and other “leaders at the plant” were looking to reduce employee headcount, they did not need two process engineering technicians, and the coworker was more senior than the plaintiff.

Nor could the technician establish pretext. He argued that Cambria had enough work to keep him employed full-time, observing that, until he went on leave in February 2023, he was working full-time, and frequently, overtime. Here, the court found that his argument missed Cambria’s central point: because of production slowdowns, Cambria could complete its workload whether it employed him full-time or not. And by his own admission, Cambria simply “shifted” his workload to other employees after it terminated him. Cambria never filled his position. The undisputed record, concluded the appeals court, thus showed that Cambria terminated the technician to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Entitlement. Turning to the employee’s FMLA entitlement claim, the appeals court concluded similarly. Here, the only disputed issue was whether Cambria’s reason for terminating him was “connected to” his FMLA leave, and Cambria would not be liable if it “can prove it would have made the same decision” had the employee not taken FMLA leave.

Here, again, the undisputed record established that he was terminated because the CRO and other “leaders at the plant” were looking to reduce employee headcount, they did not need two process engineering technicians, and his coworker was the senior one. Having already found that “there is plenty of evidence to support this rationale,” the court again found that the employee failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact impugning it.

The judgment of the district court was accordingly affirmed.

The case is No. 25-3464.

Judge: Gruender, R.

Attorneys: Celeste Eileen Culberth (Culberth & Lienemann) for Anthony Knight. Zachary Aaron Alter (Felhaber Larson) for Cambria Co., LLC.

Companies: Cambria Co., LLC

MainStory: TopStory EmployeeLeave Discharge ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews GCNNews