One of the nation’s largest credit card lenders has had a summary judgment ruling in its favor affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after it was sued for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act by an employee who had been terminated.
The background: The plaintiff, who had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression, claimed she faced adverse employment actions after taking leave under the FMLA and raising complaints about the administration of her leave. Specifically, she alleged that her temporary supervisor had incorrectly docked her pay during her FMLA leave, and despite the issue being resolved, she believed that her complaints led to retaliatory actions, including her eventual termination.
- The plaintiff also argued that her firing was motivated by her disability, asserting that the defendant had used her medical condition against her. Additionally, she claimed that the company interfered with her rights under the FMLA and retaliated against her for exercising those rights.
- The employee was ultimately terminated after an investigation into allegations of misconduct involving the plaintiff’s use of derogatory language.
The ruling: In its decision, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish she was discriminated against or that the company retaliated against her under the ADA. The plaintiff went so far as to admit during her deposition that she did not believe her medical condition was used as a reason for her termination. As well, there was no substantial evidence indicating that the plaintiff’s disability was the cause of her termination, which is a requirement under the ADA.
- Regarding the FMLA claims, the Ninth Circuit also found no basis for overturning the lower court’s decision. The plaintiff’s interference claim was dismissed because she could not demonstrate that the defendant willfully interfered with her FMLA rights. The court noted that the defendant had promptly restored her pay after realizing the error and that the plaintiff had successfully taken FMLA leave without any incident in the past.
- The retaliation claim under the FMLA similarly failed because there was insufficient evidence to link her termination to her use of FMLA leave or her complaint about its administration.
- The Ninth Circuit highlighted that while the plaintiff presented some evidence to suggest that the allegations of derogatory language may have been false, she could not provide enough proof that her termination was a pretext for retaliation. The court emphasized that an employer’s honest belief in the reasons for an adverse employment action is sufficient, even if those reasons may ultimately be mistaken, as long as they are not a cover for unlawful discrimination or retaliation.
