In a rare move, a federal district court in the District of Columbia overturned a jury's verdict in favor of an employee who claimed that a "reallignment" of her sales territory three years earlier, while she was out on FMLA leave, ultimately led to the termination of her employment. This case illustrates a key principal under the FMLA: an employee's right to "reinstatement" following FMLA leave is not a guarantee of permanent employment. Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

The Facts

Plaintiff Kate Breeden was a salesperson for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. In early 2005, she took FMLA leave in connection with her pregnancy. Around the same time, Novartis "realligned" its sales force and assigned Breeden a smaller sales territory than she had before. Although she complained about the change and her supervisor told her that she would be "made whole" soon after returning from leave, no changes were made to the territory. However, over the next few years her merit-based income was greater than before the reallignment, and her "sales rank" among her peers improved. In 2008, a new management team carried out a new reallignment. As a result, Breeden's territory was merged with that of another salesperson. Because her territory was the smaller of the two, her position was eliminated and Novartis terminated her employment.

The Lawsuit

Breeden sued Novartis, alleging that the company violated the FMLA in 2005 when it failed to restore her sales territory following her return from FMLA leave. Breeden argued that this violation in turn led to her termination in 2008. Breeden's case went to trial, and the jury found in her favor, awarding her $289,669, which the court ordered doubled to $579,338 under the FMLA's liquidated damages provision. However, in a rare move, the court subsequently reversed the jury's verdict on a motion from Novartis. Breeden's claim failed, the court found, because although her sales territory was reduced in 2005, she was not terminated "by reason of" the 2005 reallignment. Rather, the court held that the two reallignments were "completely disconnected from one another." The court noted that there was no evidence that anyone involved in the 2005 reallignment anticipated that Breeden would be terminated as a result, and none of those individuals were involved in the 2008 decision to terminate Breeden's employment. Rather, the 2008 reallignment was a "substantial intervening cause" for Breeden's termination.

Insights for Employers

1. FMLA leave is not a guarantee of permanent employment. While employers must ensure that employees returning from FMLA leave are reinstated to the same position that they held before leave, or to a position with equivalent pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment, "[a]n employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period." 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a). Further, while the FMLA prohibits retaliation against employees who have used FMLA leave, it does not prohibit employers from taking otherwise legal employment actions for reasons unrelated to an employee's FMLA leave.
2. However, employers should be prepared to prove that adverse actions are not related to FMLA leave. Novartis prevailed in this case because it was able to demonstrate that its 2008 termination was unrelated to her 2005 FMLA leave and the change in her sales territory that followed. Similarly, employers who find it necessary to take actions that may adversely employees who have been reinstated from FMLA leave should document and be prepared to explain the "substantial intervening causes" for such actions.