Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—S.D. Ill.: Employee who alleged ‘hostile environment’ after leave stated FMLA retaliation claim, (Dec 8, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Her credit union employer allegedly excessively questioned her about her work, changed her job responsibilities, and eventually discharged her, all because she took FMLA leave to care for her father.

A credit union employee, who was allegedly “forced” to take paid annual leave rather than unpaid leave to care for her ill father, then was allegedly harassed and eventually discharged because she exercised her rights under the FMLA—may proceed with her claims of FMLA interference and retaliation, a federal district court in Illinois found. The employer argued that claims of harassment or a hostile environment are not cognizable under the FMLA, but both may be evidence of retaliation if the plaintiff suffered monetary losses from the alleged retaliation or seeks equitable relief, and the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts plausibly to suggest the harassment and hostile environment she alleged were in retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights and led to a change of job responsibilities that might be considered a demotion or her firing (Greer v. 1st MidAmerica Credit Union, No. 25-cv-1554-JPG (S.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2025)).

Leave to care for father. The employee alleged that the employer violated the FMLA when she returned from FMLA leave in 2023. Although it approved her FMLA leave and allowed her to take it to care for her ill father, it allegedly improperly forced her to take paid annual leave rather than unpaid leave.

Alleged harassment and HWE. She also alleged that, upon her return from leave, the employer harassed her, created a hostile work environment (HWE), excessively questioned her about her work, changed her job responsibilities, and eventually discharged her, all because she exercised her right to take FMLA leave. She sought, among other things, compensatory damages for emotional distress.

Motion to dismiss. The employer sought dismissal of her harassment and HWE claims, arguing that they are not cognizable under the FMLA. It noted that damages for emotional distress are not available under the FMLA either.

Former employee’s arguments. The employee argued in response that the employer waived its arguments by filing an answer contemporaneously with its motion. Although she agrees to strike her claim for emotional distress damages, she further argued that her pleading was sufficient to satisfy the liberal federal notice pleading requirement.

Waiver. The court first found that the employee waived her waiver argument. She simply failed to cite any law to support her contention that the employer waived the arguments in its motion to dismiss by filing an answer.

Harassment and HWE? Her FMLA retaliation claim, however, survived. Although there is no independent cause of action under the FMLA for harassment or a hostile environment, the court noted, harassment or a hostile environment may be evidence of retaliation if the plaintiff suffered lost wages or any other monetary losses from the retaliation or if she seeks equitable relief such as reinstatement or promotion.

Here, the employee alleged sufficient facts plausibly to suggest that the harassment and hostile environment she allegedly experienced were in retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights and led to a change of job responsibilities that might be considered a demotion or to her termination. Those allegations were appropriately pleaded in the action in support of a retaliation claim, the court concluded.

Emotional distress damages. Finally, acknowledging that damages for emotional distress are not available under the FMLA, and that the employee consented to striking this damages claim, the court nonetheless noted that striking is not appropriate because the prayer for relief is not “an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” subject to striking under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). If she wishes to omit this prayer for relief, the court said, she may seek leave to amend her pleading. Nor was dismissal appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6), which is “not the proper mechanism for requesting dismissal of parts of claims, such as a prayer for a certain type of relief.”

The case is No. 25-cv-1554-JPG.

Judge: Gilbert, J.

Attorneys: Michael J. Brunton (Brunton Law Offices) for Tracy Greer. Thomas E. Berry (Jackson Lewis) for 1st MidAmerica Credit Union.

Companies: 1st MidAmerica Credit Union

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation IllinoisNews