Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—S.D. Ohio: School employee, whose contract was not renewed after taking leave, advances interference claim, (Jun 24, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

Whether her contract would have been renewed absent her FMLA leave was an issue for a jury to decide.

A school district employee whose employment contract was not renewed one month after she took FMLA leave can proceed to trial with her FMLA interference claim, a federal district court in Ohio ruled. Based on the personnel director’s testimony about her performance and inability to improve it due to her leave, the court found a jury should decide whether her leave was impermissibly used as a negative factor in the nonrenewal decision. However, the court granted the district’s motion for summary judgment on her state and federal disability claims because she failed to show the reason for her termination—poor performance—was pretext (Proffitt v. Northeastern Local School District Board of Education, No. 3:24-cv-32 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 23, 2025)).

The employee, who suffered from ADHD, anxiety, depression, and PTSD, worked for the Northeastern Local School District Board of Education as an aide for special needs students during the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. Prior to the start of the 2021-2022 school year, the district began looking to hire a new behavioral specialist. Although the employee did not have the necessary college education to be considered for the position, the district’s special education supervisor recommended her for it, and the personnel director agreed. The district hired her under a limited two-year contract.

Performance issues. Although the employee received a largely positive evaluation in her first year in the position, her second year did not go as well. The personnel director received complaints about her from faculty and parents of special needs students. In response to these complaints, in November 2022, he placed her on a performance improvement plan.

FMLA leave. In February 2023, the employee and her supervisor had a heated discussion about the employee’s improper administration of a student’s behavior plan and assessments. The employee claimed the supervisor bullied her and caused her stress, prompting a need for medical leave. She took FMLA leave from March 1 to 9, and then extended the leave through April 20.

Once it was apparent the employee would not be returning from leave before the end of the school year, the personnel director prepared her final administrative evaluation for the school year using the data he had collected in the preceding months. The evaluation indicated she was either developing or otherwise ineffective in half of all the metrics used for evaluation for the school year. He admitted her use of FMLA leave prevented her from fully progressing with her PIP for the 2022-2023 school year. He recommended that the district not renew her contract for the following school year, and the district concurred.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the employee filed FMLA, and state and federal disability claims against the district. The district filed this motion for summary judgment.

FMLA interference. Denying the district’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s FMLA interference claim, the court found a jury should decide whether her FMLA leave was impermissibly used as a negative factor in the decision not to renew her contract for the 2023-2024 school year.

At his deposition, the personnel director stated that he recommended the employee for non-renewal based on her performance before going on FMLA leave. He also admitted that she was on a PIP that she never had the opportunity to complete before she went on leave. When he said that he could not assess her improvement in full under this plan because she was out on leave, he was saying that she could do nothing to satisfy her PIP within the time allowed and have her contract renewed because she took FMLA-protected leave.

The director’s testimony, the court said, implied that her use of FMLA leave contributed to the decision to not renew her employment. Whether her employment contract would have been subject to nonrenewal even if she had not exercised her FMLA rights “would seem a conjectural inquiry,” the court said. At the same time, it was an issue of fact for a jury to resolve.

Disability discrimination. Turning to the employee’s disability discrimination claims, the court granted the district’s motion for summary judgment, finding the district’s stated reason for non-renewal of her employment contract was not pretext for discrimination.

The court first addressed whether the employee had shown prima facie cases of disability discrimination and retaliation, and it found that she had done so. Regarding her disparate treatment claim, the only element in dispute was whether she was qualified for the behavioral specialist position. She showed she was otherwise qualified for it where they hired her despite her academic background because she had been proven reliable as an aide in prior school years. The personnel director testified that his first evaluation for her showed her definitive strengths in the role even though she did not yet have a college degree. In fact, the district took no corrective action against her until after she received her bachelor’s degree.

Regarding her retaliation claim, she also made out a prima facie case based on the temporal proximity between her use of the reasonable accommodation of leave and the district’s actions toward non-renewal of her contract. She had been on medical leave for less than a month when the personnel director prepared an evaluation designed to justify non-renewal of her contract. A reasonable jury could find that she cleared the “low hurdle” of proving a causal link between her use of leave and the onset of adverse action taken against her.

No pretext. Next, the court found the district articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment. The district did not renew her contract because of her poor job performance.

Addressing whether this reason was pretextual, the court found it was not. The employee did not argue the reason was pretextual, but rather, she alleged her colleagues and superiors conspired to exclude her from meetings and withhold student data from her. Even assuming she faced such mistreatment, there was no independent evidence she was otherwise performing well in her role as a behavioral specialist, the court found. Rather, it appeared from the record that the district was receiving complaints about her from faculty and parents alike regarding her poor performance. Thus, the court found the district’s stated reason for the non-renewal of her contract was not pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, the court granted the district’s motion for summary judgment on her disability discrimination claims.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-32.

Judge: Rose, T.

Attorneys: Gary A. Reeve (Law Offices of Gary A. Reeve) for Mary Proffitt. Ryan Michael LaFlamme (Ennis Britton) for Northeastern Local School District Board of Education.

Companies: Northeastern Local School District Board of Education

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation OhioNews