Bank properly terminates misbehaving employee despite FMLA leave, 6th Circuit holds

In 2017, a series of personal adversities, including probation for an incident with a gun and an ex-girlfriend, cocaine use, and a DUI arrest, ultimately culminated in a stroke for Mark Snyder, a financial director for U.S. Bank. When he returned in 2018 for his FMLA leave following his stroke, he suffered from residual physical and behavioral conditions, such as depression, agitation, and anxiety. Employees began to complain to management about his combative and confrontational behavior. After an investigation, the Bank told Snyder that further issues could result in other disciplinary actions, including termination of employment.

On June 4, 2018, Snyder had yet another confrontation with his supervisor, Johnnie Carrol, and his assistant Marcia Kleinhenz. As a result, Carroll emailed HR, explaining that Snyder's behavior "is consistent with his issues of attempting to intimidate people" and "I no longer think [Snyder's] situation is redeemable and feel I need to act." Carroll made the decision to terminate Snyder's employment that evening.

That same night, Snyder suffered a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized. The following day, he requested FMLA leave, which the Bank granted. A couple weeks later, however, Carroll and HR contacted Snyder to inform him that Bank was terminating his employment effective at the end of his FMLA leave.

The 6th Circuit had little difficulty affirming the dismissal of Snyder's FMLA claims.

• On his FMLA interference claim, the Court concluded that the June 4 confrontation was the "point of no return" for Carroll, and that he made the decision to terminated Snyder before learning of his nervous breakdown and hospitalization later that night.

• On his FMLA retaliation claim, the Court disagreed that evidence that Snyder had been a good employee before he took FMLA leave for his stroke supported a theory that the Bank schemed to push him out of the company after he took his that initial FMLA leave. To the contrary, the Court held, "Snyder cites no evidence supporting his theory that it was the FMLA leave, not the numerous complaints into his behavior, that was the reason for his termination, and "the only evidence he has supporting his theory is timing, which by itself is insufficient."

Many employers have a paralyzing fear of terminating an employee who has engaged in protected conduct, no matter the circumstances. Snyder demonstrates that this can be unfounded. The potential of a lawsuit certainly ups the ante when terminating an employee who has, for example, taken or requested FMLA leave. Yet, in the right circumstances and for the right reasons, employers do not need to live in fear of firing a deserving employee, provided that they have a legitimate reason, have taken the right steps, and have the proper documentation.