Monday, April 6, 2009

More on laying off the protected


Last month I provided some tips on how to properly layoff employees who happen to fall into a protected class. Last week, in Bell v. Prefix, Inc., the 6th Circuit helped drive home my point, and teaches some important lessons on proper layoff techniques.

Jonathan Bell claimed that Prefix included him a layoff in retaliation for a recent FMLA leave of absence he took to care for his dying father. Between July 22 and August 5, 2005, Bell took 3½ days of approved FMLA leave while his father was hospitalized for heart surgery. At the same time, Prefix’s new general manager began an ad hoc termination of employees to save money during a substantial downturn in business. Bell’s termination came August 8, just two weeks after the start of his FMLA leave and three days after his last FMLA absence.

In reinstating Bell’s FMLA retaliation claim for a jury trial, because a reasonable jury could conclude that Prefix held a retaliatory motive in terminating Bell. The court focused its decision on the collective strength of five pieces of evidence:

  1. When Bell had to leave work after receiving an emergency call from the hospital, the general manager belittled him in front of his co-workers, and in a raised voice “accused him of ‘abandoning’ Prefix when there was work to be done.”

  2. In discussing Bell’s termination, the general manager commented that he needed to work more hours.

  3. The general manager’s comments about poor work quality are directly contradicted by Bell’s only written performance review.

  4. The close temporal proximity between Bell’s FMLA leave and the termination.

  5. The lack of any formal structure for the RIF, or the use of any objective process or criteria in selecting employees for inclusion.

This case teaches employers some very important lessons in how to conduct a RIF.

  1. It is important to have some structure for the RIF, whether it is written criteria (objective or subjective), past performance, ranking of employees, or some other basis. A rationale that can be justified is needed for why one employees was RIFed over another.

  2. Discussions about who will or will not be included should be kept to a minimum. This point rings even more true if the decision is solely based on some objective criteria.

  3. Assume that any comments that can in any way be twisted to appear discriminatory or retaliatory will come back to haunt you in later litigation.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Latest Posts