Employee’s multiple claims didn’t show FMLA violations

An employee who had multiple workplace complaints had plenty to say in court, even if the complaints didn’t point to any actual violations. To win the case, however, the aggrieved employee had to show that their employer's actions violated an employment law, including when it was related to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

In his suit, Charles, a mechanic, seemingly didn’t have the best workplace experience. He had filed two previous claims against his employer and indicated that his employer treated him in a less-than-desirable manner.

Charles’ complaints included the following:

• The employer wrote him up and threatened him with an occurrence because he didn’t respond to messages when he was in the bathroom, due to his alleged disability (diverticulitis). The employer then questioned him as to his whereabouts, even after he explained that he was in the bathroom in gastrointestinal distress. This allegedly involved being put in a room with employer representatives, with someone in a chair blocking the door and preventing Charles from leaving.
• Dorothy, an assistant administrator, questioned and interrogated him “on how he had replaced a part on a bus needing repair with a part that purportedly was not in stock,” Charles claimed that the inventory records weren’t accurate and hadn’t been since he started. When he asked why he was the only mechanic not allowed to pick up parts, Dorothy didn’t give him a reason and, in a hostile and condescending tone, told him, “Because I said so.”
• Management called Charles into the office because “he had been absent on certain days.” He explained that the company had awarded him FMLA leave for that time, and alleged that “Management... did not believe him and continued to question, interrogate, and harass him regarding the absences.”
• A supervisor told Charles that he had come to learn that Charles had been put on a “blacklist,” and that management was trying to get rid of him because of and in response to his prior-filed grievances.
• The company began attempting to set him up to arrive late at random drug testing appointments to get him fired, by setting appointments and not giving him enough time to make the appointments.
• Dorothy had “inappropriately touch[ed] him” on two occasions “in a manner that made him feel uncomfortable.”

While Charles had plenty of complaints, in the end, the court dismissed his claim because he couldn’t show that all these issues had anything to do with his FMLA leave. He had no evidence of the connection between such actions and his protected FMLA leave rights. At the time of this writing, Charles was still working for the employer.

Mattison v. Maryland Transit Administration, Maryland Department of Transportation, District of Maryland, No. 24-cv-3338, October 29, 2025.