While the Teachers’ Retirement System of the State of Illinois (TRS) maintained that it fired Julie Stephens Long (Long) for poor performance, Long believed that she was fired in retaliation for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TRS, which Long appealed.
The case is Julie Stephens Long vs. Teachers’ Retirement System of the State of Illinois.
Long began working at TRS in September, 1985. Starting in 2000, Long held the position of Payroll Clerk IV. Her primary responsibilities included enrolling members in the electronic fund transfer (EFT) program, entering EFT information into a database, verifying bank routing and account numbers and responding to change of address requests from beneficiaries.
When she started in Payroll, Long received favorable performance reviews. Over time, errors in her work and increasing absences led to lower reviews. In June 2005, she missed 25% of her scheduled working days. In July 2005, her absences rose to 40%. Although Long had been asked in 2004 to train employees from other departments on the EFT process, she had not done so as of June 2005. On July 26, 2005, Long was informed that because of her absenteeism, any recommendation for promotion would be withdrawn. Long agreed with the assessment regarding her absenteeism. She was instructed to train other employees within on the EFT process by September 2005.
In September 2005, TRS traced numerous errors within the EFT system to Long. TRS met with Long to discuss her errors and the impact that her absences had on other TRS employees. She was also informed that she had not processed payroll deduction plan applications in a timely manner which resulted in the responsibility for processing the applications being moved to another department. Once again, Long was urged to train other TRS employees on the EFT process.
In the fall of 2005, members of the TRS management team held meetings to discuss Long’s performance. Long was making many more mistakes than previously thought. They received complaints from Long’s fellow employees and Long’s errors resulted in TRS failing to get its checks to its members.
On September 26, 2005, TRS informed Long that she might be eligible for leave under the FMLA. Long was approved for intermittent FMLA leave in October 2005 and was instructed to notify her supervisors when she would be absent because of her medical condition. Long then informed TRS that her absences on September 22 and 28, 2005 were related to the condition. In November 2005, Long modified her FMLA application to request intermittent leave for an additional condition. TRS approved the revised application on December 2, 2005. Long then informed her employer that many more absences were related to FMLA leave. She was also absent from work for nine days in December 2005 and five days in January 2006 but the record indicated that those absences were not FMLA-related.
During a meeting held in late December 2005, the management team discussed that Long’s performance had not improved. A large backlog of EFT forms were found that Long had not entered into the system related to several occasions. It was suggested that Long be fired. On January 31 , 2006 during another meeting held to review Long’s continued negative performance evaluations, misdirected checks and member complaints it was decided that Long would be fired. Long’s employment with TRS was terminated on February 3, 2006.
Long filed suit, claiming that TRS fired her in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. The District Court granted summary judgment to TRS, finding that Long failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether TRS fired her in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. Long appealed the District Courts findings.
On appeal, Long made numerous claims without proving to the Appeals Court that her case warranted further consideration for a jury to consider. She questioned the District Court’s decision to strike portions of her affidavit that contradicted her previous deposition testimony, yet failed to develop the argument or to cite to any specific portions of the record where the court erred.
When attempting to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FMLA using the direct method of proof, Long was required to present evidence of (1) a statutorily protected activity; (2) a materially adverse employment action taken by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.
Neither party disputed that Long was engaged in a protected activity when she took FMLA leave, or that she suffered an adverse employment action when she was terminated. To support her contention that TRS fired her because she took FMLA leave, she offered the following pieces of circumstantial evidence:
- Statements made by TRS,
- Failure of TRS to follow its internal discipline procedures when it fired her, and
- A “sudden decline” in her performance reviews around the time that she took leave.
Long argued that she was fired because TRS held animus towards her for taking FMLA leave. To support that contention, she unsuccessfully pointed to a memo and several statements regarding her absences. For example, within the memo that Long pointed to, it was noted that her absences were discussed and the impact that her absences had on Payroll’s overall workload. The problem with Long using that argument was that TRS countered that the absenteeism affecting Long’s performance started well before she took leave under the FMLA, In June 2005. TRS contended that Long’s absences had a negative impact on the morale of other Payroll employees because they had to perform Long’s duties in addition to their own. Although Long claimed that the memo provided evidence of retaliatory animus towards her FMLA leave, what she provided to the court indicated that TRS met with Long and drafted the memo before she even applied for FMLA leave. Because of the timing, the Appeals Court found that the memo and the statements made in the related meeting did not provide evidence of retaliatory animus since, “an employer cannot retaliate if there is nothing for it to retaliate against.”
To demonstrate a causal connection between a protected activity and an adverse employment action, the Appeals Court indicated that “a plaintiff must provide direct or circumstantial evidence that the “decision maker” has acted for a prohibited reason.” The Appeals Court could not find the record to contain evidence that Long was fired because she took FMLA leave; the court found that the decision maker had not known that Long even took FMLA leave when her firing took place.
Long also charged retaliatory intent by claiming her employer failed to follow internal discipline procedures. Although TRS’s policy allowed for progressive discipline, it also allowed for termination in the event of continued failure to respond to previous warnings. Because Long received several warnings before termination and because TRS had the ability to begin disciplinary action at any step, the Appeals Court determined that TRS did not violate its disciplinary policy when Long was terminated.
Long argued that the decline in her performance evaluations provided circumstantial evidence that TRS terminated her in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. Claiming that her exemplary track record “belied any suggestion that her performance suddenly changed”. The Appeals Court found the record to show documented deficiencies in Long’s performance well before the date of her first FMLA-related absence.
With all of Long’s arguments failing to present evidence that TRS acted with retaliatory intent when it fired her, and because it could not be inferred that she was fired for taking leave related to FMLA, the Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
