March 10, 2009
Previously published on March 2, 2009
A territory sales manager for a pet medicine company entered a month-long inpatient program for alcoholism. Prior to taking the leave, the manager had been a strong performer, and had enjoyed his best year ever during the prior year. Within weeks of returning from his leave, the employee was given a set of additional performance requirements to be met within his first month back. Shortly thereafter he was given a poor performance evaluation. The employee was subsequently placed on a performance improvement plan and ultimately terminated. He sued the employer, alleging that his termination was in retaliation for his exercising his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The employer defended the suit by arguing that it terminated the employee for poor performance, and that no evidence to the contrary was presented. In rejecting this argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted that prior to taking leave the employee’s performance was comparable to many other sales managers, and that his subsequent evaluation failed to take into consideration that the employee had missed a month of work. Additionally, the court focused on the fact that the employer placed increasingly unrealistic performance goals on the employee, further evidencing retaliatory intent. While employees returning from leave can be disciplined for poor performance, employers must act carefully to ensure that the discipline is based on objective standards and measured against the performance of other similarly situated employees.
Burris v. Novartis Animal Health U.S., Inc., No. 08-6030 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009)
|