Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—N.D. Ga.: Employee advances FMLA, but not discrimination, claims where he was fired in RIF during leave, (Sep 29, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The company did not explain why the employee was passed over for the remaining post-RIF operator position.

A company was not entitled to summary judgment on an employee’s FMLA retaliation and interference claims after it terminated him in a reduction in force following his extensive FMLA leave to care for his wife who had breast cancer, a federal district court in Georgia ruled. The company failed to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for including the employee in the RIF. However, the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of ADA associational discrimination because he did not show the decision to terminate him was motivated by his wife’s disability. The court also granted summary judgment in the company’s favor on his race and sex discrimination claims due to a lack of evidence that race or sex motivated any adverse action against him (Donald v. Toppan USA, Inc., 3:24-cv-00243-LMM (N.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2026)).

Toppan hired the employee, an African-American man, in 2016 as an operator at its plant in Griffin, Georgia. A few years later, he was promoted to senior operator and, in 2021, to production supervisor. Starting in 2019, he requested and took intermittent leave under the FMLA to care for his wife, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Condition worsened. In May 2023, the employee’s wife’s condition worsened. He began taking more time off from work, using more than 110 hours of leave in May alone. He used FMLA leave on seven days in June and four days in July, including July 13.

Reduction in force. On July 13, 2023, his supervisor, who was the director of operations, terminated the employee in a reduction in force. Fourteen other employees were also terminated. Among his peers of four production supervisors, two, who were white, retained their positions, and the third, an African-American man, was demoted to senior operator. Another senior operator, whose race was not indicated in the record, also was retained in a senior operator position. At the employee’s termination meeting, the director told him he was included in the RIF because he had the least seniority of the production supervisors.

Prior proceedings. Thereafter, the employee filed a lawsuit, alleging claims for associational discrimination in violation of the ADA, FMLA interference and retaliation, race discrimination in violation of Section 1981, and gender and race discrimination under Title VII. Toppan filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended the motion be granted. The employee filed objections to the report.

FMLA retaliation. Denying Toppan’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim, the court found the company failed to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to include him in the RIF.

The court first found the employee established a prima facie case of retaliation with evidence of a causal connection between his taking of leave and termination. The director of operations, who knew of the employee’s FMLA use and made the decision to terminate the employee, fired him on a day the employee used intermittent leave.

In addition, the employee pointed to email exchanges suggesting that his FMLA leave affected the director’s decision to include him in the RIF. Among other statements, the director wrote to his supervisor that he had amended the schedule “to better give [defendant] an advantage on continuing the line of production if employees take vacation/sick/FMLA [leave],” explaining later that he did so because “the machines have to run.” The court found the evidence suggested that the director might not have included the employee in the RIF if he had not taken FMLA leave.

Reason for termination. The court then shifted the burden to Toppan to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for including the employee in the RIF. The company explained that because of a significant slowdown in production, it cut the number of production supervisor positions from four to two, kept the two most senior production supervisors in their positions, and retained the third-most-experienced production supervisor in a senior operator position.

However, Toppan did not explain why a senior operator was retained in the operator position instead of the company placing him in that position. He had been promoted previously from that operator position and appeared to have been qualified to perform it. Therefore, the court found Toppan had not offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for including the employee in the RIF rather than placing him in the senior operator position.

Interference. Likewise, the court denied Toppan’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s interference claim because a reasonable jury could find his termination was due to his FMLA leave. There was no evidence showing that his position, per se, was eliminated. Rather, two of four production supervisor positions were eliminated, another production supervisor was placed in a senior operator position, and Toppan had not explained why the employee, who was qualified to work as a senior operator and was included in at least one draft of the post-RIF organizational chart, was passed over for the remaining post-RIF senior operator position in favor of another employee.

In addition, as the court previously discussed, there was evidence the employee’s FMLA leave influenced the decision to include him in the RIF. Thus, the court found Toppan had not established as a matter of law that it would have included the employee in the RIF even if he had not taken FMLA leave.

Associational discrimination. Granting Toppan’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s associational discrimination claim, the court found he failed to show the decision to terminate him was motivated by his wife’s disability. The company pointed to persuasive caselaw holding that there could be no adverse inference, where, as here, the employer knew of the associate’s disability for years before it undertook the adverse employment action even where the disability worsened.

The court also rejected the employee’s argument that another colleague who had used FMLA leave was included in the RIF. The time off to care for his wife was the basis for his FMLA claims, but it did not show that Toppan included him in the RIF “because of unfounded stereotypes or assumptions on the company’s part about care required by disabled persons.”

Race, sex discrimination. Finally, the court granted Toppan’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s race and sex discrimination claims, finding he could not establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, race discrimination, or sex-plus-race discrimination. The production supervisor who was demoted but retained as a senior operator also was an African-American man. In addition, the court found nothing in the record to show that sex or race had anything to do with any adverse action against the employee. There also was no evidence that would present a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent.

Thus, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation with respect to the motion for summary judgment on the ADA, Title VII, and Section 1981 claims, and rejected the portion of the report that recommended granting summary judgment on the FMLA claims.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00243-LMM.

Judge: May, L.

Attorneys: Cherri Latoya Shelton (The Shelton Law Practice) for Brian Donald. Alyssa Karynn Peters (Smith & Prophete) for Toppan USA, Inc.

Companies: Toppan USA, Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation GeorgiaNews