Keywords
Family leave; medical leave; maternity leave; paternity leave; leave; legal history; legislative history; Bill Clinton; George H.W. Bush; statutory interpretation; legislation; Congress; retaliation; pregnancy; pregnant; causation; employment law; labor law; Family and Medical Leave Act; civil rights law; Pregnancy Discrimination Act; minimum labor standards; interference; discrimination; National Labor Relations Act; Civil Rights Act; Title VII; Age Discrimination in Employment Act; statutory history; circuit courts; circuit split; but-for causation; mixed-motive causation; negative factor causation; agency deference; agency respect; congressional intent; congressional purpose
Abstract
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees employees unpaid leave following certain qualifying events. The FMLA not only provides substantive rights but also prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise those rights. When employees face unlawful retaliation, they can bring retaliation claims against their employers. However, there is disagreement among courts as to how to evaluate these claims. More precisely, courts are split concerning whether employees must prove their use of leave was a but-for cause of retaliation, or merely that it was one of an employer’s mixed motives for retaliating. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eighth Circuits have held that a mixed-motive causation standard applies, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has required a but-for causation standard.
This Note advocates for the mixed-motive causation standard, grounding the analysis in statutory interpretation, purpose, and policy. The mixed motive standard best allows plaintiffs to successfully vindicate their statutory rights and aligns most clearly with Congress’s intent, contemporaneous understandings of law, and the language of the FMLA.
Recommended Citation
Eliana C. Singer,
Splitting the Baby:
Determining the Causation
Standard in Family and Medical
Leave Act Retaliation Claims,
95 Fordham L. Rev. 377
().
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol95/iss1/8
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Family Law Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Litigation Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons