Taking medical leave, family leave, pregnancy leave, or other protected time off should not jeopardize employment. California and federal law prohibit employers from punishing employees for exercising their legal right to take protected leave. Yet many employees in Los Angeles find themselves terminated shortly after returning from leave, or even while still on leave.
Employers rarely admit retaliatory intent. Instead, they often point to performance issues, restructuring, or business needs. Proving retaliation, therefore, depends on identifying patterns, timing, and inconsistencies that reveal the real motive behind the termination.
What Counts as Protected Leave
Several state and federal laws provide job-protected leave for qualifying employees.
Common forms of protected leave include:
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- California Family Rights Act (CFRA).
- Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL).
- Military family leave.
- Paid sick leave.
- Certain disability-related medical leave.
When an employee qualifies for protected leave and follows the required procedures, the employer must allow the leave and reinstate the employee to the same or a comparable position.
Termination because an employee used protected leave is unlawful.
Retaliation Does Not Require Direct Admission
Most retaliation cases are built using circumstantial evidence. Employers rarely say, “You are being fired for taking leave.”
Instead, retaliation often appears disguised as:
- Sudden performance problems.
- Alleged policy violations.
- “Restructuring” or position elimination.
- Claims of poor attitude or lack of commitment.
Courts look beyond the employer’s stated reason and examine whether the explanation is credible when compared to the employee’s work history and the surrounding circumstances.
Timing Is One of the Strongest Indicators
Temporal proximity, meaning how close in time the termination occurs after protected leave, is a powerful form of evidence.
Red flags include:
- Termination immediately after returning from leave.
- Termination announced while still on leave.
- Discipline begins shortly after the leave request.
- Negative evaluations appearing for the first time post-leave.
The closer the adverse action is to the protected leave, the stronger the inference that retaliation may have occurred.
Sudden Performance Criticism After Leave
Many employees receive positive feedback for years, only to face criticism after taking leave.
Warning signs include:
- First-ever write-ups after returning.
- Vague accusations such as “not a team player.”
- Criticism that contradicts prior reviews.
- Minor issues elevated into serious problems.
When performance issues appear only after protected leave, it raises questions about whether the documentation is genuine or manufactured.
Shifting or Inconsistent Explanations
Another indicator of retaliation is when the employer’s explanation changes.
Examples include:
- Initially citing budget cuts, later claiming performance.
- Claiming position elimination but hiring a replacement.
- Giving different reasons to different people.
Inconsistent explanations undermine credibility and can support an inference of unlawful motive.
Evidence That Strengthens a Retaliation Claim
Successful claims often rely on documentation that shows a before-and-after comparison.
Helpful evidence may include:
- Past performance reviews.
- Emails praising work quality.
- Written leave requests and approvals.
- Messages referencing frustration about absences.
- Timeline of discipline or termination.
Even informal communications can become critical evidence.
Comparative Evidence
Courts also consider how similarly situated employees are treated.
Examples include:
- Employees who did not take leave but engaged in similar conduct and were not fired.
- Only the employee who took leave is selected for layoff.
Unequal treatment supports an inference of retaliation.
Pretext: Showing the Employer’s Reason Is Not the Real Reason
In retaliation cases, employees need not prove that the employer had only one motive. They must show that the stated reason is a pretext, meaning not the true reason.
Pretext can be shown by:
- Demonstrating the reason is factually false.
- Showing the employer deviated from normal procedures.
- Establishing suspicious timing.
- Highlighting contradictory documentation.
Multiple small inconsistencies can collectively establish a pretext.
What Employees Should Do After Termination
Employees who suspect retaliation should act carefully.
Important steps include:
- Preserve all emails, texts, and documents.
- Write down a timeline of events.
- Save performance reviews and evaluations.
- Avoid signing severance agreements without legal review.
Early legal guidance helps protect evidence and preserve claims.
How a Los Angeles Employment Law Attorney Can Help
Retaliation cases require careful analysis of timing, documentation, and employer behavior. An experienced employment law attorney can evaluate whether protected leave contributed to the termination and identify the strongest legal theories.
Legal representation also shifts communication away from the employee and onto counsel, reducing the risk of further retaliation.
Leichter Law Firm represents employees in Los Angeles County and throughout California in retaliation and wrongful termination matters. The firm focuses exclusively on employee-side employment law and understands how employers attempt to conceal unlawful motives.
Taking the Next Step
Employees who were terminated after taking protected leave may have valid retaliation claims even if the employer provided an official reason.
A confidential legal consultation can clarify rights, evaluate evidence, and determine whether legal action is appropriate. Contact Leichter Law Firm, APC, to discuss potential retaliation after protected leave and explore available legal options.