New England Biz Law Update
A federal lawsuit filed in Florida is raising familiar and uncomfortable questions for HR teams about performance management timing and leave-related retaliation risk.
In the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a former project manager alleges he was fired in retaliation for taking paternity leave.
The case involves six related claims, including Title VII, pregnancy-related discrimination, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the state civil rights act. While the litigation is in its earliest stage, the complaint lays out a timeline that HR professionals may recognize as legally sensitive territory.
Timeline closely aligned with leave requests
According to the complaint, the sequence began shortly after the employee requested paternity leave.
- June 5, 2024: The plaintiff formally requested 50% of his available paternity leave.
- Mid-June 2024: Roughly two weeks later, he received his first verbal performance warning. He alleges the feedback consisted of vague comments about communication style without specific examples.
- Late November 2024: He informed his supervisor he planned to take his remaining leave.
- December 5, 2024: A second warning was issued, citing an error from a meeting that had occurred nearly three weeks earlier, an issue the complaint alleges had not previously been raised.
- January 2025 (post-leave): After returning from approved leave, the plaintiff claims monitoring intensified, with what he describes as daily or near-daily scrutiny and discipline for minor infractions.
- June 2025: The plaintiff filed an internal complaint with HR alleging retaliation and expressing concern that the company was building a record to justify termination.
- Approximately one week later: While on approved vacation, the plaintiff was terminated during a call with his supervisor and an HR representative.
The stated reason for termination, according to the complaint, was failure to implement feedback on a specified project. The plaintiff alleges that his supervisor had previously instructed him to pause work on that project and await further direction.
Legal framework
Retaliation claims under the FMLA and Title VII typically hinge on three elements:
- Engagement in protected activity (e.g., requesting or taking protected leave),
- An adverse employment action (such as termination), and
- A causal connection between the two.
Temporal proximity, especially when discipline closely follows protected leave requests, often becomes central evidence in these cases.
Courts do not prohibit employers from disciplining or terminating employees who have taken leave. However, employers must demonstrate that adverse actions are based on legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons that are well-documented and consistently applied.
The complaint alleges that similarly situated employees who did not take family leave were not disciplined for comparable or more serious errors.
For human resources leaders, the complaint serves as a reminder: Retaliation risk often turns less on policy language and more on execution, i.e., how performance issues are documented, how timing aligns with protected activity, and whether internal processes demonstrate fairness and consistency.
