Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—E.D. Pa.: No evidence manufacturer interfered with employee’s rights or retaliated against her for requesting leave, (Apr 29, 2025)

By Molly Platnick

The court tossed a former employee’s unlawful interference and retaliation claims because there was no evidence the employer’s Chief Operating Officer was aware of her FMLA activity or underlying medical condition.

A federal district in Pennsylvania granted a manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in an action brought by a former employee who claimed she was fired for taking FMLA leave. The former employee’s suit alleged the manufacturer violated the FMLA when it interfered with her right to take medical leave and discharged her in retaliation for requesting leave. The court analyzed the former employee’s retaliation claim under the McDonnel Douglas burden shifting framework and emphasized district courts have the discretion to dismiss interference claims that are duplicative of concurrently pled retaliation claims. The evidence did not suggest the former employee requested to use FMLA time for her qualifying condition and the court found the manufacturer could not have interfered with her rights under the act, nor retaliated against her because of her FMLA status (Conklin v. ABEC, No. 2:24-cv-00857 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2025)).

Leave request. The employee started working at the company in January 2021 and suffers from Celiac Disease. Because of her condition, she requested FMLA leave in August 2022. The employee’s physician completed the FMLA certification paperwork, and she returned it to her supervisor and the manufacturer’s HR generalist within the stipulated 15 calendar days. The employee did not, however, at any point submit a request to use that leave.

The employee was terminated in September 2022. The company argued it discharged her because she did not the meet expectations associated with her duties. The decision was made by the company’s Chief Operating Officer and carried out by the HR Generalist and Global Director of Supply Chain. Fatal to her case, the former employee did not depose either the COO or Global Director during the discovery period.

In February 2024, the employee filed her initial complaint alleging state-law wrongful termination and unlawful interference and retaliation under the FMLA. She later amended her complaint, abandoning the state-law claims.

Interference. The issue was whether the employee plausibly alleged the manufacturer interfered with or restrained her from exercising her rights under the FMLA. Interference is prohibited by the FMLA if (1) an employee was entitled to take leave, and (2) the employer denied her that entitlement. Case law gives district courts the discretion to dismiss interference claims that are “wholly duplicative of concurrently plead retaliation claims.” Here, the undisputed facts indicated the former employee requested but did not request to use her FMLA leave nor apply it retroactively.

Instead, the court noted, the documentation provided by the employee’s physician authorized prospective use of FMLA leaving starting August 2022. The court reasoned that under the record evidence it was impossible the manufacturer denied the former employe the leave to which she was entitled “since [she] never attempted to use her FMLA leave.”

Because the manufacturer per se did not interfere with the employee’s rights under the FMLA, her only remaining claim was that she was fired because she qualified for FMLA leave, making her inference claim “wholly duplicative” of her retaliation claim. Citing Lichtenstein v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the court dismissed the employee’s inference claim as “so clearly redundant to the retaliation claim.”

Retaliation. “Retaliation” means discharging an employee for opposing an unlawful interference. The relevant inquiry is whether the COO, as “the decision maker responsible for her termination,” knew the employee’s FMLA status when he made the decision to discharge her. To successfully plead retaliation under the FMLA, the former employee must show (1) she invoked her right to FMLA leave, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) the adverse action was “causally related to her invocation” of her FMLA rights.

Retaliation claims are analyzed under the burden shifting framework set out in McDonnel Douglas and require plaintiffs to present enough evidence for a prima facie case of an FMLA right, termination, and causation. The burden then shifts to the employer to show some legitimate, non-discriminatory cause for the termination.

The court here concluded the employee did not provide enough evidence the COO knew of her FMLA status to make a prima facie retaliation claim. The court emphasized the employee did not depose the COO, which left only the COO’s affidavit stating he fired her because she could not meet her assigned duties. The court was not persuaded by the employee’s contention the COO had “constructive knowledge” of her FMLA status, noting “courts [including the Third Circuit] have uniformly rejected the concept of constructive knowledge in the context of discrimination.”

Not was temporal proximity enough to save the former employee’s retaliation claim, as the time between termination and qualification under FMLA is not enough on its own to prove the COO knew of the protected conduct. The employee also failed to respond to the manufacturer’s alleged nondiscriminatory reasons for dismissing her, meaning even if she had shown the COO knew of her FMLA status, she still had not satisfied the third prong necessary to plead retaliation.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-00857.

Judge: Weilheimer, G.

Attorneys: Briana Lynn Pearson (German Gallagher & Murtagh) for Tammy Conklin. Preeya Bansal (Jackson Lewis) for ABEC, Inc.

Companies: ABEC, Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge PennsylvaniaNews