Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Orange Business Services, Inc. on Patricia Haran’s claims for interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court held that performance criticisms unrelated to Haran’s leave did not constitute discouragement, and that the employer’s failure to provide FMLA notice did not prejudice her. The court also affirmed the without-prejudice dismissal of Haran’s related New York City Human Rights Law claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether OBS interfered with Haran's FMLA rights by discouraging her from taking leave through scrutiny and criticism of her job performance.
- Whether OBS interfered with Haran's FMLA rights by failing to provide timely notice of her FMLA eligibility and rights.
- Whether OBS retaliated against Haran for exercising or attempting to exercise FMLA rights by terminating her employment.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Haran's NYCHRL claim after dismissing the federal claims.
Holdings
- An employer's criticism and scrutiny of an employee's substantive job performance do not establish FMLA interference under a discouragement theory when they are not objectively connected to the employee's requests for or use of FMLA leave. Haran therefore failed to create a triable issue because OBS granted her leave requests and its criticisms concerned job performance rather than leave.
- An employer's failure to provide the FMLA notices required by regulation is actionable as interference only when the employee proves prejudice—namely, a real impairment of FMLA rights or an effect on leave, benefits, or reinstatement. Haran failed to show prejudice.
- Summary judgment was proper on Haran's FMLA retaliation claim because, even assuming she exercised FMLA rights and established a prima facie case, she failed to produce evidence that OBS's legitimate, nondiscriminatory performance-based reason for terminating her was pretextual.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Haran's related NYCHRL claim after properly dismissing the federal claims.
Key quotations
“Criticizing, even berating an employee’s substantive job performance is not enough to assert a claim for interference under a discouragement theory.” (at 11)
“But failure to follow these notice requirements is actionable interference only if an employee was prejudiced by this failure.” (at 12)
“Where timing is the only basis for a claim of retaliation, and gradual adverse job actions began well before the plaintiff had ever engaged in any protected activity, an inference of retaliation does not arise.” (at 15)
Factual background
Patricia Haran worked as a Senior Account Manager for OBS and began managing additional U.S.-headquartered accounts in 2020. After her daughter was diagnosed with a possible femur tumor and her mother was diagnosed with macular degeneration, Haran took a total of eight and a half days of paid time off to provide care. OBS granted her leave requests without negative comments about the absences, but criticized her performance in managing accounts and terminated her employment in February 2021 based on concerns about her projected sales performance.
Procedural history
Patricia Haran sued Orange Business Services, Inc. for FMLA interference and retaliation and for familial-status discrimination under the NYCHRL. After discovery, OBS moved for summary judgment. The Southern District of New York granted summary judgment on the FMLA claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claim, dismissing it without prejudice. Haran appealed, and the Second Circuit affirmed.