Disciplining employees who can’t meet certain standards because they miss work due to medical leave.

One recent case was brought by a salesperson who took 12 weeks of FMLA when she gave birth.

All salespeople in the company were required to meet a yearly sales quota. The woman didn’t meet hers for that year, so she was placed on a performance improvement plan and then fired.

She sued, claiming she was fired because of her leave, since the quota likely wouldn’t have been a problem for her without missing those three months.

The court agreed. Even when employers don’t fire employees directly because they took FMLA, they can still be held liable if FMLA indirectly played a role in the decision-making.

To stay safe, companies must make sure they don’t take any action that wouldn’t have occurred if an employee had not taken FMLA leave.

Cite: Wojan v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.

Read the facts of this real-life case and decide: Who won?

The facts:

A new manager took over as head of the finance department. When he started, he was told one of the employees had previously been caught falsifying an expense report. After hearing that, he decided to conduct an audit of work — and sure enough, there was evidence she’d done it again. She was fired, and she sued the company. Why? No other employees were audited, and she claimed she was singled out because of her race.

The employer said:

Race had nothing to do with it — she was audited because she broke the rules before, and the company thought she might do it again.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: The company had a good reason to conduct the audit — the employee’s prior behavior.

To win the case, she would have had to show a “similarly situated” employee being treated differently. For example, if an employee of a different race had been caught falsifying expenses and not been audited, that might have been evidence of racial bias.

It’s a good lesson for managers everywhere: If you have a legitimate reason — and the documentation to back it up — there’s nothing wrong with keeping an extra close eye on one employee’s conduct or performance.

Cite: Nelson v. Sprint/United Management Co.