Fifth Circuit Questions Dismissal of FMLA Claimant

Employers that quickly terminate a worker who is scheduled to come off a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) absence must be careful that their decision cannot be construed as unlawful retaliation. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the District Court’s decision in Murillo v. City of Granbury, holding that sufficient evidence exists of a wrongful termination to justify a trial on the merits. 

In the case, Jessica Murillo, a mother working for the city, requested FMLA leave for childcare purposes, which was granted under special legislation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite that fact that Ms. Murillo was entitled to be on FMLA leave, she faced pressure from her manager and co-workers to get back on the job. 

For example, one of Murillo’s co-workers relayed a message that their manager, Rick Crownover, wanted her to return to work. When Murillo called Crownover to discuss her situation, she says she felt threatened by his angry demand that she return to work immediately. After her request for some type of alternative work arrangement was denied, Ms. Murillo contacted her human resources manager. The HR manager said that her job was safe and that she had to be back at work on June 24.

Murillo did not return to her job that day and when Crownover informed the HR manager of this, she responded, “Great! I was hoping she wouldn’t come in. Let’s term[sic] her.” She was subsequently fired based on “job abandonment.” The trial court ruled in favor of Granbury, rejecting Murillo’s claim that her termination was retaliatory for taking FMLA leave.

However, the appeals court found flaws in the city's handling of the situation, including the swift termination without exploring other options and the failure to provide proper context for the explanation that Murillo had abandoned her position. In their decision, the judges highlighted the city's own policies regarding progressive discipline and the lack of evidence supporting the immediate termination for job abandonment. The happiness expressed by the HR manager at Murillo’s absence suggests that she and Crownover might have been hoping to find a justification that they thought would cover their retaliatory intent. 

The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the District Court to determine if Murillo’s rights were indeed violated. This decision highlights the fac that employers must be careful and reflective at all times during the termination process. When alleging that an employee abandoned their job, they should be sure that ample evidence exists that the worker did not intend to return. A one-day absence during a dispute about returning from FMLA likely will not suffice. Likewise, any semblance of a “celebration” by employers in a situation such as this could be used to show that a firing was actually motivated by an unlawful intent. 

If you have a question about the termination process or an employee’s rights under FMLA, contact the Kardell Law Group today.