Background
Jeffrey Steidle, a former employee of United States Liability Insurance Company, Inc., suffered from mental health conditions including major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. After requesting Family and Medical Leave Act leave in 2020 and reasonable accommodations in 2021, Steidle received significantly reduced bonuses and salary increases compared to previous years. He filed suit alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The District Court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding that the reduced compensation did not constitute an adverse employment action and that there was no causal connection to his protected activity.
The court’s reasoning
The Third Circuit held that the definition of an adverse employment action in Title VII retaliation cases, as established in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, applies equally to retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court determined that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the significant reductions in Steidle’s 2020 bonus and salary increase were materially adverse because they might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from requesting leave or accommodations. Regarding causation, the court found that the close temporal proximity between Steidle’s 2020 leave request and the bonus decision created an inference of causality. However, the six-month gap between his 2021 accommodation request and the bonus decision was insufficient to establish causation, and the record lacked evidence of a pattern of antagonism sufficient to support an inference of retaliation for the 2021 bonus.
What it means going forward
Employers in the Third Circuit must apply the less restrictive Burlington Northern standard when evaluating adverse employment actions in ADA and FMLA retaliation cases. The ruling clarifies that reductions in discretionary bonuses and salary increases can constitute retaliation if they are materially adverse to a reasonable worker, shifting the burden to employers to justify such actions as non-retaliatory.