Did Media Company Cancel Saleswoman’s Job because she Used FMLA Leave?

What Do You Think?

Employers can get into trouble for retaliation if they fire an employee because the employee is using or has used FMLA leave. But what if that employee genuinely cannot return to work because of her medical situation and the company needs to fill her position? 

That was the question in the case of an account executive for a media company who became pregnant with twins. Early in the pregnancy, a sales manager said the company was "trying to keep [her] off of FMLA” This account executive wanted to delay using leave until after she delivered the babies.

Toward the end of the pregnancy, she began having various significant complications, including  placenta previa (a condition that causes severe bleeding). She took FMLA leave starting around Feb. 22, 2022. When her FMLA leave ran out on May 17, she was still having complications. The company granted her an additional 12 weeks of leave. 

At the end of those 12 weeks, the employee told the company that she was still having complications, would need surgery, and wasn’t sure when she could return to work.

On August 15, the company sent an email terminating her. It said: "Since you have been off work since February 23, 2022 and given the critical nature of the Account Executive position, we can no longer hold your job.”

The employee sued the company for FMLA retaliation. 

To sue for retaliatory discharge, an employee has to show:

1. She engaged in a protected activity;
2. The employer took an adverse employment action against her; and
3. The employer took that action because of the protected activity

Did the employee establish an FMLA retaliation claim?

A. Yes. The sales manager’s comment suggested the company was against her taking FMLA leave.

B. No. Three months passed between the end of her FMLA leave and the date she was fired.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Coffman v. Nextstar Media, Inc., No. 23-2253 (4th Cir. 07/22/25, unpublished), which held that the account executive failed to show that her termination was causally linked to her taking FMLA leave.

The court stated that the account executive showed that she engaged in a protected activity when she took FMLA leave and that her employer treated her adversely when it fired her. But she failed to show those two things were causally connected. 

First, the company allowed her to take FMLA leave as needed and even gave her an additional 12 weeks of leave when it wasn’t required to do so. 

Second, it was not until August 19 that the company fired her. That means that three months passed between the end of her FMLA leave and her termination. The amount of time that passed undermined her assertion that the company fired her for exercising her FMLA rights.

Further, the employee’s claim that the sales manager said the company was "trying to keep [her] off of FMLA” didn’t help her case, the court found. The statement was made early in her pregnancy at a time when she wanted to delay her FMLA leave so she could use it later on. 

“Because this is the sole argument that [the employee] uses to demonstrate the required ‘causal link,’ we agree with the district court that her claim fails,” the court wrote.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling in the employer’s favor.

Share This Article: