Here’s what happened:

An employee suffered a serious back injury. He requested two months of FMLA leave.

When he asked for time off, his manager allegedly warned him, “If you take that much leave, there will not be a job waiting for you when you get back.”

Nonetheless, he was allowed to take leave and was reinstated after two months.

Then, however, the employer underwent a company-wide reduction-in-force. The employee returning from FMLA had the lowest seniority in his department, so he was let go.

He sued, claiming he was laid off because of his FMLA leave. He pointing to the manager’s threat as his primary piece of evidence.

The court agreed with him and refused to dismiss the case.

In any other situation, the company may have escaped liability — after all, the employee was given leave, reinstated and chosen for the RIF based on objective, unrelated criteria. Normally, it wouldn’t have been hard to show the termination had nothing to do with his FMLA leave.

But in this case, the manager’s response to his initial request made all the difference for the judge.

Cite: Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc.

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

The facts:

When faced with budget problems, the employer reduced its workforce. To save the most, employees with the most seniority — and therefore, usually, the highest pay — were terminated. Two employees who were let go sued, claiming the policy discriminated against older employees.

The employer said:

Employees weren’t chosen for the layoff because of their age — they were chosen based on how long they had worked for the company. While there may be some overlap, the two factors are separate, and there was no intentional age discrimination.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: The court agreed that a seniority-based policy is not the same as having a policy based on age. As the judge said, “A decision based on years of service is not necessarily ‘age-based.’”

Therefore, the cost-cutting strategy was legitimate and non-discriminatory.

Cite: Allen v. Highlands Hospital Corp.

There are several types of staff reductions, each with a slightly different meaning. Referring to the company’s plan by the proper term will eliminate some confusion and help the process go smoothly:

1. Furlough

In a furlough, employees work reduced hours so the company can save on payroll without having to terminate anyone.

For example, nonexempt workers might each take one unpaid day off a week for a few months. Exempt employees can be furloughed for a set number of full weeks.

2. Layoffs

Though any staff reduction is often referred to as a layoff, the word really means that the reduction is temporary. Telling employees they’re being laid off implies the company expects to bring the workers back when business picks up.

3. Reduction in force

Permanent reductions should be referred to as a reduction in force (RIF).

That makes it clear that staff is being permanently shrunk and workers will not be called back.

The suit was filed after the company laid off 31 employees — 30 of whom were over the age of 40. The company argued that age played no part in the decision. The case was initially thrown out when the plaintiffs failed to prove the layoffs were age-related.

But the Supreme Court overturned that decision, saying the company had the burden to show the “disparate impact” was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” Previously, courts in similar cases ruled it was up to employees to prove there was bias.

The case now goes back to the circuit court to decide if the company met that burden.

What’s it mean for employers? Some experts say the decision will lead to more age discrimination suits, especially as more companies reduce their workforces due to a sluggish economy.

It’s a good reminder that when companies do have to lay people off, they need strong documentation of the decision-making criteria so they can prove age and other protected categories didn’t play a role.

Cite: Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory