Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—3d Cir.: Relaxed standard for Title VII retaliation claims applies to ADA, FMLA claims, (Jun 25, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Given the similarities between the three statutes, “we subject retaliation claims under all three statutes to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework….”

Partially vacating a lower court’s grant of summary judgment against the ADA and FMLA retaliation claims asserted by a former insurance company employee, the Third Circuit held that the “more relaxed standard” applied to Title VII retaliation claims also applies to retaliation claims under the ADA and the FMLA. The claims in this case stemmed from lower than expected bonuses and raises given to an employee after he had engaged in protected activity. Post Burlington Northern, plaintiffs need only show that an action is materially adverse insofar as it might dissuade a reasonable worker from exercising their rights under the statute. “Receipt of a lower than anticipated bonus and salary increase could certainly dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity,” said the court (Steidle v. United States Liability Insurance Co., Inc., No. 24-2999 (3d Cir. June 24, 2026)).

Shortly after his honorable discharge from the Marines, the employee in this case began struggling with his mental health, ultimately receiving a diagnosis of major depressive disorder in 2010. In 2013, he began working for an insurance company.

Bonuses and raises. Near the end of each year, the company would award an annual salary increase and bonus that would go into effect the following calendar year.

FMLA leave. From October 1, 2020, through December 20, 2020, the employee took approved FMLA leave to treat his mental health conditions. His annual bonus and raise were approved during this time—a $3,000 bonus and a 2.5 percent salary increase—a more than 40 percent reduction in bonus and salary increase compared to previous years.

“Combative” meeting. After returning to work at the end of 2020, the employee requested and was granted an accommodation to continue working remotely if and when the company reopened its offices. On July 21, 2021, he emailed his supervisor describing a situation with another employee that caused him to take a “mental health sick day.” The supervisor forwarded the email to her lead, who set up a meeting with the two. According to the employee, the meeting was “combative,” with the lead yelling at him.

2021 bonus. At the end of 2021, the employee received a 3.6 percent salary increase and a $3,150 bonus.

Indefinite leave. In January 2022, the employee requested and was granted FMLA leave through April for treatment related to his mental health conditions. In March, he requested an extension of his medical leave, with his doctor stating he was totally disabled and unable to report work indefinitely.

Termination. On September 14, 2022, the employee was informed that the company could not grant his request for indefinite leave and that it was terminating his employment.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the employee filed suit asserting claims of ADA disability discrimination, as well as ADA and FMLA retaliation. The district court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding the employee had failed to establish a prima facie case.

In addressing the employee’s retaliation claims, the district court defined an adverse employment action as one that “alters the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, deprives him or her of employment opportunities, or adversely affects his or her status as an employee.”

Applying this standard, the court concluded that the employee had not suffered an adverse employment action. It also concluded that he had failed to establish a causal connection between his request for accommodation and medical leave and his receipt of smaller bonuses and salary increases. This appeal followed.

Adverse employment action. It was undisputed that the employee had engaged in protected activity. The question underpinning this case was whether he had experienced an adverse employment action. In the context of Title VII discrimination claims, an adverse employment action is defined as one that demonstrates some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment, explained the court.

A more relaxed standard. However, continued the court, a more relaxed standard applies to retaliation claims. In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff claiming retaliation under Title VII “must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse” in that “it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”

Two months after Burlington, the Third Circuit applied this standard to a Title VII retaliation claim. Since then, it had not decided precedentially whether the less restrictive standard also applies to retaliation claims under the ADA and the FMLA. Here, it held that it does.

Finding the antiretaliation provision in the ADA to be “nearly identical” to the one in Title VII, the court further noted that the antiretaliation provision of the FMLA was derived from Title VII and was intended to be construed in the same manner. Given these similarities, the court saw “no reason to apply a different adverse employment action standard to ADA and FMLA retaliation claims when nothing in the text of the ADA or the FMLA suggests that we ought to apply a more restrictive standard,” joining its sister circuits in the application of a more relaxed standard to post-Burlington Northern ADA and FMLA retaliation claims.

In accordance with Burlington Northern, the court determined that a reasonable factfinder could find that the lower bonuses and smaller salary increases the employee received in 2020 and 2021 could have dissuaded a reasonable worker from requesting accommodation or FMLA leave.

Distinctions unnecessary. Post-Burlington Northern, the court could find no precedent establishing that the receipt of lower than anticipated bonuses and salary increases were not adverse employment actions in retaliation claims.

Appellate courts that had reached such a conclusion prior to Burlington Northern relied on a distinction between discretionary and automatic bonuses, where only a reduction in the latter constituted an adverse employment action. This distinction was necessary pre-Burlington, explained the court, as an adverse employment action required the altering of an “employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

However, continued the court, Burlington Northern eliminated the distinction between automatic and discretionary bonuses. There, the Supreme Court clarified that “the antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.” Therefore, plaintiffs “need only show that an action is ‘materially adverse’ in that it ‘well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from’” exercising his or her rights under the statute.

Application. Turning to the case at hand, the court noted that prior to 2020, the smallest bonus the employee received was $5,500 and his lowest percentage salary increase was 4.5 percent. However, his bonuses and salary increases were significantly reduced after engaging in protected activity. A reasonable jury could conclude that these reductions might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from requesting FMLA leave or an accommodation, said the court. Thus, the district court erroneously held that the employee did not suffer adverse employment actions in 2020 and 2021.

Causation. As to the causation element, the court observed that the employee’s supervisor approved a smaller bonus and lower percentage salary increase while the employee was on FMLA leave toward the end of 2020. Despite the temporal proximity, the district court concluded that the employee could not establish causation because it was the company’s common practice to make bonus decisions late in the year. This fact, however, was not relevant at the causation stage when unusually suggestive timing has been established, explained the appellate court. Instead, this was central to the second and third steps of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, which the district court did not address. Therefore, the district court erroneously held that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation as it related to his 2020 bonus.

With regard to the 2021 bonus, the appellate court reached a different result. The employee requested an accommodation to continue working remotely in May 2021. His bonus and salary increase were approved almost six months later. This six-month gap alone was insufficient to establish an unusually suggestive temporal proximity, explained the court.

Although the employee attempted to establish a pattern of antagonism to help carry this claim over the line, the court was not moved. While it was true that the employee had been assigned an increasing number of claims, this pattern began months before he made his accommodation request. Further, his single meeting with his supervisor’s lead, despite being “combative,” did not lead to any disciplinary action against the employee. Without more, a jury could not reasonably find that the company engaged in a pattern of antagonism based on this single conversation, said the court. Thus, the employee had failed to establish a causal connection between his accommodation request and his 2021 bonus.

Based on the foregoing, the appellate court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the employee’s retaliation claims arising from the 2020 bonus and remanded to the district court to consider in the first instance whether he had established pretext. The district court’s grant of summary judgment as it related to the claims arising from the 2021 bonus was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-2999.

Judge: McKee, T.

Attorneys: Wayne A. Ely (Law Offices of Wayne A. Ely) for Jeffrey Steidle. John T. McDonald (Reed Smith) for U.S. Liability Insurance Co. Inc.

Companies: U.S. Liability Insurance Co. Inc.

Cases: Retaliation Discharge Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination EmployeeLeave DelawareNews NewJerseyNews PennsylvaniaNews