Careless Remarks Can Doom Otherwise Lawful Termination
- By Your mom
- •
- 01 Apr, 2007
In a recent case handed down by the U.S. District Court for Connecticut, an employer’s
motion for summary judgment was denied because of careless comments made by supervisors
prior to and during a discharge meeting. Dupee v. Klaff’s Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81592
(Nov. 8, 2006). A security guard employed by Klaff’s was injured in an on the job motor vehicle
accident. Following his injury he missed approximately one month of work and continued to be
absent periodically for medical treatment. All time off was covered by the Family and Medical
Leave Act. He was terminated about one year after the accident for alleged poor performance,
including failures to report off when absent.
In his complaint, the guard claimed his performance was satisfactory, he had provided
appropriate notice when absent, and that he was actually terminated in retaliation for missing
time from work. In making his claim, he relied on statements made by managers immediately
following his injury and during the termination process. Specifically, he stated that a co-owner
of the company told him she was very upset about the accident, he needed to return to work, and
that nothing was really wrong with him. Another senior manager allegedly ridiculed him in front
of co-workers and implied his follow-up doctor’s appointments were unnecessary. At his
termination meeting, in reply to his request for an explanation, he was told by his supervisor that
he was being terminated because he had too many doctor’s appointments.
The court found these statements alone were sufficient to deny Klaff’s motion for
summary judgment as they indicated retaliatory animus in violation of the FMLA. This case
points out that even when a legitimate basis for termination may exist, an employer’s statements
can undermine its position. Employers should communicate carefully with employees exercising
their FMLA rights and thoroughly prepare for any termination discussion to ensure the rationale
provided complies with all legal requirements.
motion for summary judgment was denied because of careless comments made by supervisors
prior to and during a discharge meeting. Dupee v. Klaff’s Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81592
(Nov. 8, 2006). A security guard employed by Klaff’s was injured in an on the job motor vehicle
accident. Following his injury he missed approximately one month of work and continued to be
absent periodically for medical treatment. All time off was covered by the Family and Medical
Leave Act. He was terminated about one year after the accident for alleged poor performance,
including failures to report off when absent.
In his complaint, the guard claimed his performance was satisfactory, he had provided
appropriate notice when absent, and that he was actually terminated in retaliation for missing
time from work. In making his claim, he relied on statements made by managers immediately
following his injury and during the termination process. Specifically, he stated that a co-owner
of the company told him she was very upset about the accident, he needed to return to work, and
that nothing was really wrong with him. Another senior manager allegedly ridiculed him in front
of co-workers and implied his follow-up doctor’s appointments were unnecessary. At his
termination meeting, in reply to his request for an explanation, he was told by his supervisor that
he was being terminated because he had too many doctor’s appointments.
The court found these statements alone were sufficient to deny Klaff’s motion for
summary judgment as they indicated retaliatory animus in violation of the FMLA. This case
points out that even when a legitimate basis for termination may exist, an employer’s statements
can undermine its position. Employers should communicate carefully with employees exercising
their FMLA rights and thoroughly prepare for any termination discussion to ensure the rationale
provided complies with all legal requirements.
