Firing an employee 6 days after she requested FMLA leave proves risky

In late 2022, Rosa, an employee, told Richard, her boss, that her daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor that required surgery and ongoing medical treatment. Rosa said she would need intermittent time off from work to care for her daughter during this period. This time would likely fall under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

On January 6, 2023, the employer’s third-party FMLA administrator notified Richard that Rosa had submitted an intermittent FMLA leave request to care for her daughter.

Before receiving this notice, the employer had been talking about potential revisions to Rosa’s job duties. But on January 12, 6 days after receiving notice of Rosa’s FMLA request, Richard decided to discontinue his efforts to revise Rosa’s duties and instead move forward with eliminating her position altogether.

On February 1, the employer formally approved Rosa’s request for intermittent FMLA leave. But on February 7, it told Rosa that it was terminating her employment, effective February 17.

Rosa sued.

In court, the employer argued that there was no evidence that Rosa had taken FMLA leave before her position was eliminated. But Rosa didn’t claim retaliation for leave already taken. She claimed the employer acted adversely because Rosa was likely to request additional leave in the near future. She also claimed that the employer fired her because she asked for leave.

Rosa was able to point out a couple of pieces of evidence:

• Timing - The short amount of time between her protected activity (asking for leave) and the decision to eliminate her position was suspicious. The timing was a major factor since the termination decision wasn’t finalized until after she invoked her FMLA rights.
• Reasoning - The employer’s shifting reasons for its termination decision were an issue. First, it said the decision to terminate Rosa was performance-based, and then that it was budgetary. Rosa pointed out, however, that Richard never counseled her regarding any alleged work performance deficiencies, and the budget was approved without eliminating her position.

All this gave the court enough evidence not to throw the case out, as the employer hoped. The case will proceed to trial unless settled beforehand.

Gallego-Feliciano v. City of Lancaster, et al, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 5:25-cv-04246, June 9, 2026.