Key to remember:
Employer laid off employees on leave — Court approved class action suit
08/28/2024
Employers should carefully navigate layoffs to avoid discrimination claims
Nhu took 10 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her child. Less than a month after she returned to work, she was told that she was included in a reduction in force (RIF), also known as downsizing or a layoff, when a new owner took over the company.
Determining the layoffs
More than half of the company's workforce was being laid off. The decisions about which employees to include in the RIF, however, were made hastily by a small group of managers under the owner's supervision. Some of these managers were brought in from other companies the owner ran and had little knowledge about business operations at this facility.
In selecting employees for layoffs, management paid little attention to:
- Job performance,
- Qualifications,
- Experience, and
- Abilities.
The company notified the laid off employees in November 2022, however, approximately 60 percent of employees notified about being laid off were on FMLA leave at the time, compared to about 51 percent of employees overall.
Must be 'extremely hardcore' to stay employed
Most of the employees who were on leave but not terminated during the RIF were no longer employed by the company following the new owner's ultimatum. He said that employees must agree to being "extremely hardcore" and "working long hours at high intensity" to remain employed.
Nhu sued, asking for a class action on behalf of all employees who were laid off and who had recently taken, or were preparing to take, FMLA leave.
In court, the employer argued that Nhu's use of FMLA leave wasn't relevant since she was one of about 2,600 employees laid off.
The court did not agree with the employer and denied its request to dismiss the case, allowing the class action case to continue.
The court pointed out that the employer's decision to undertake a RIF did not mean it could discriminate against employees who took FMLA leave. Nhu's termination could have been motivated by multiple reasons, but if one of those reasons was her recent FMLA leave, then the company unlawfully interfered with her rights under the FMLA.
How the employer treated employees who were on leave (especially FMLA leave) showed the court that these employees were discriminated against because of their FMLA leave.
Weinberg et al., v. Twitter, Inc., et al., Northern District of California, No. 23-cv-04016, August 21, 2024
Employers that implement RIFs should carefully consider who is to be included and who will not, and not discriminate on the basis of FMLA leave.
This article was written by Darlene M. Clabault, SHRM-CP, PHR, CLMS, of J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. The content of these news items, in whole or in part, MAY NOT be copied into any other uses without consulting the originator of the content.
The J. J. Keller LEAVE MANAGER service is your business resource for tracking employee leave and ensuring compliance with the latest Federal and State FMLA and leave requirements.