Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—E.D.N.Y.: Termination letter, sent to employee at the end of her maternity leave, bolstered FMLA claims, (Oct 2, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The letter, sent on the verge of her return from leave, stated that her supervisors had determined “current staff members” were able to coordinate her work into their own duties, and therefore her role was dissolved.

A metal and glass company that claimed that, due to a substantial downturn in business, it had decided to eliminate a scheduling manager’s position before she announced her pregnancy, but did not actually terminate her until just days before she was scheduled to return from maternity leave, will face trial on the employee’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims. Denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, a federal magistrate judge concluded that a while a jury could credit the employer’s evidence that process changes had been implemented due to a reduction in force and that the employee’s leave was irrelevant, “the jury could also consider the statements in the Termination Letter, along with the timing of the termination decision just days before plaintiff’s return, and the testimony that her job was being successfully handled by other people, as evidence that her FMLA leave status was certainly a factor inextricably linked to the failure to reinstate her and in the termination decision” (Game v. Lafayette Glass Company, Inc., No. 23 CV 7833 (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Scheduling manager. The employer hired the employee in 2014 in an administrative role. In 2019, she was promoted to a newly created scheduling manager role within the field operations department. In that role, she worked with project managers to determine personnel needs and then assigned staff to projects. She also maintained the schedule and payroll for field workers, with data entry consuming a large part of her time.

Maternity leave. On October 10, 2022, she announced that she was pregnant and would need to take maternity leave in the Spring of 2023. In January 2023, she spoke with the operations director and the HR manager about her maternity leave and return to work afterwards. The HR manager sent her the required paperwork, which she submitted on March 15, and the company approved her request for FMLA maternity leave from May 18 until August 10.

Job elimination allegedly contemplated. While she was on leave her work tasks were divided among other staff members. However, the parties disputed whether her job duties were also substantially reduced due to a companywide downsizing stemming from the overall reduction in the workload. Moreover, the employer claimed that management had decided to terminate her before learning of her pregnancy after the operations director learned that a competitor did not employ a scheduling manager but instead used a data entry process. After learning of her pregnancy, management allegedly delayed her firing in hopes that work would return to levels that would justify her employment.

July 31 communication. On July 31, she reached out to the HR manager to discuss her return to work. The HR manager sent her question to the CEO, knowing she was going to speak to the operations director about her role. According to the HR manager, it was at that meeting when the final decision was made to eliminate her role, though the operations director claims the decision had already been made.

Termination letter. The employee’s August 9 termination letter, sent while she was still on maternity leave, stated: “During your maternity leave, we have reviewed your role and workload. Following significant process improvements, we have determined that current staff members are able to coordinate your work into their regular duties, and your role has been dissolved.”

FMLA interference? The court denied both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment as to the employee’s FMLA interference claim, finding that a number of triable issues existed. Notably, it was undisputed that right before the employee was set to return from leave, she received a termination letter stating that her position had been dissolved since management had determined that “current staff members” were able to coordinate her work into their own duties. However, the employer claimed that it had a “lawful reason” unrelated to her exercise of FMLA rights: her role as scheduling manager was “dissolved strictly for business needs and to eliminate redundancies.” In support, the company pointed to statistics that demonstrated a downturn in the volume of jobs the company was receiving and the correlation between the employee’s duties and the downsizing and process initiatives.

Leave as a possible factor. In response, the employee pointed to evidence that suggested that her being out on leave was a factor that contributed to the decision not to reinstate her.

First, the timing of certain events was in question, including whether the operations director decided to streamline the scheduling process before or after the employee began taking her maternity leave. Though the employer claimed that it had already been in the process of implementing a new software program that took over certain aspects of her job, the operations director conceded the software was not intended to replace her role. Given that the system did not actually go online until seven months after her termination, a jury could consider the employer’s reliance on this system as “a post hoc justification” for terminating the employee because it realized her position could be adequately covered by others.

Significantly, the credibility of the employer’s witnesses was a critical factor in determining the validity of their explanation of the decision not to reinstate the employee. For instance, the operation director’s own testimony as well as that of other witnesses confirmed that the decision to terminate her did not occur until after she had gone on leave. According to the HR manager, the decision was made on July 31, after the employee had reached out to discuss returning to work and only days before her contemplated return. “More importantly, the stated rationale for her termination as set forth in the Termination Letter provides a basis from which it could be inferred that because her tasks had been successfully redistributed while she was on leave, the company had, as a consequence, reconsidered the continued need for her role, and decided not to reinstate her.”

FMLA retaliation claim. Based on these disputed facts, the court also denied the employer’s bid for summary judgment on the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim. Its defense rested on its claim that the company was forced to make reductions in its workforce due to a downturn in projects and that these bona fide layoffs, which included the employee, demonstrated a legitimate reason for her termination. But while a jury could find that downsizing was the only factor leading to the employee’s termination, it could also conclude that because the employee was on leave, and her tasks had been successfully managed by others in her absence, the decision to terminate her was taken in retaliation for her taking leave.

The case is No. 23 CV 7833 (CLP).

Judge: Pollak, C.

Attorneys: Leah Seliger (Joseph & Kirschenbaum) for Yexy Game. Michael D. Yim (Franklin, Gringer & Cohen) for Lafayette Glass Co. Inc. and Hillary Hulteen.

Companies: Lafayette Glass Co. Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation NewYorkNews