Supervisor’s Big Mouth Results in Unnecessary Litigation

A recent case out of the First Circuit Court of Appeals is an excellent example of the old adage, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." In Chase v. USPS, No. 16-1351, 1^st Cir., 12/14/16, a postal worker sued the U.S. Postal Service under the Family and Medical Leave Act, alleging that he had been terminated in retaliation for taking FMLA leave after he was injured in a car accident. As evidence in support of his case, the worked claimed that his supervisor mocked him on several occasions, including publicly referring to him as an "injury fraud specialist." The supervisor also repeatedly announced that he'd like "the carrier on Route 92 [Chase] who is faking an injury" to come to his office.

Why was the worker terminated? Because he was charged with cocaine possession during his leave period. Seems like a pretty solid reason to terminate an employee.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that the worker could not establish a case of FMLA retaliation because the supervisor--who made the decision to terminate his employment--did not know the worker was on FMLA leave. The supervisor's comments about the worker's faking of injuries were related to workers' compensation, and not FMLA, and therefore, there was no evidence that the supervisor had the requisite retaliatory intent under the FMLA.

The moral of the story: it is not a good company practice to allow supervisors or managers to mock employees. Had this supervisor kept his opinions about the worker's injuries to himself, it is doubtful that the worker would have has the desire or ability to file a case at all. As it was, the employer spent time and money defending this case all the way up to the Circuit Court of Appeals level.