Supervisor’s take-home: Don’t sugarcoat performance reviews. If someone is struggling to show up for work and handle his or her job duties, make sure the person’s performance review details those problems.
What happened: A woman who suffered from migraine headaches had a history of poor performance and inconsistent attendance. She was issued three corrective notices, including a letter of expectations, a corrective action notice and a final corrective action notice. Despite the writeups, the crew member received a positive performance review, which rated her as “valuable.”
What people did: The woman took six weeks off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) because of her migraine headaches. When she returned to the workplace, she was approved for intermittent FMLA leave. About six weeks later, the employee was let go for poor performance. At the time, she was out of the workplace on intermittent leave.
Legal challenge: The fired worker sued for FMLA retaliation. The organization argued that she had a history of attendance problems and underperformance.
Result: The employer lost. The court said the lawsuit could proceed because the woman was terminated for alleged performance deficiencies even though she’d been rated as “valuable” during her most recent performance review.
The judge also pointed to the suspicious timing of the dismissal – while the staff member was out of the workplace on FMLA leave and six weeks after she’d been approved for intermittent leave – as potential proof of retaliatory intent.
The skinny: Courts usually cast a wary eye on employers that terminate a staffer for poor performance even though the individual’s most recent performance review was mostly positive.
Cite: Ramsey v. San Jacinto College District, U.S. Court of Appeals 5, No. 25-20195, 8/5/26.
(From the September 4, 2026, issue of HR Manager’s Legal Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here).
