Royal

Employee Not Insulated from Discipline by Completing FMLA Paperwork

January 26, 2023

The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled on December 13, 2022, that an employee on thin ice with an employer does not insulate themselves from discipline by completing Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) paperwork.


An employee at Drake University for 16 years was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) during her tenure.  Despite this diagnosis, she was seemingly able to work with the dean(s) over many years without needing to file formal FMLA paperwork. However, this all changed in July 2018 when a new dean was hired.


Animosity seemed to fester as a result of the employee’s erratic work schedule. The dean was not informed of some of the employee’s absences, and continually spoke with the employee about performance and work issues. As a result, the employee was then given a performance improvement plan (PIP). This PIP laid out requirements for notice of any absences. Performance issues and any absences were documented, with FMLA time being documented separately.


The employee’s absences and performance did not seem to improve, and as a result, the employee was terminated.


The employee then filed a lawsuit against Drake University, claiming that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were violated.


The Court disagreed, and found that the employee had failed to provide substantial evidence to support that the termination was retaliatory or discriminatory under FMLA or ADA.


The Court held that an employee who exercises her rights under the FMLA “has no greater protection against termination for reasons unrelated to the FMLA than she did before doing so.” … “Otherwise, a problem employee on thin ice with the employer could effectively insulate herself from discipline by engaging in protected activity.”


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: