Moving RIF termination date up after FMLA leave request foils employer’s argument

John had been with the employer for a few years when the company began restructuring plans. This restructuring would involve eliminating some positions. John reported to Erica, who would decide which roles should be eliminated. In December 2024, Erica decided that John’s position would be eliminated.

The employer, however, didn’t document this decision until January 13. The next day, John contacted Canden in HR asking about the company's paternity leave policy. He asked that this be kept private due to complications with his wife’s last pregnancy.

Then, on February 17, John discovered documentation that reflected changes to his role. He asked Erica about it, and she encouraged him to apply for a different position. He didn’t. The next day — still before he announced his planned paternity leave — Erica created and sent a form that reflected the elimination of John’s role.

On March 3, John formally notified Erica about his wife’s pregnancy and his intention to take paternity leave later that spring.

On April 9, John formally requested FMLA leave. Two days later, on April 11, the employer told him about his upcoming termination. The remaining employees identified in the reduction in force (RIF), however, weren’t terminated until July.

John sued.

While the court ruled that no reasonable jury could find a “causal link” between John’s FMLA leave request and the general decision to include him in the RIF, it indicated that the employer might have accelerated his termination notice to April 11 because of his FMLA leave.

The close timing between John’s leave announcement and his termination notification caused the court to find in John’s favor and not throw the case out, as the employer wanted.

Shoemaker v. McKesson Corporation, Northern District of Texas, No. 3:25-CV-2558, September 9, 2026.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.