Employees who request medical leave for a serious health condition, disability, surgery, or necessary medical treatment may be protected against unlawful workplace retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). Depending on the circumstances, employers may violate these laws by firing, demoting, disciplining, reducing work hours, denying promotions, or otherwise retaliating against employees for requesting legally protected medical leave or reasonable disability-related leave accommodations.
At Pinkston Law Group, P.C., we represent employees throughout Chicago and Illinois who have experienced retaliation for requesting medical leave, FMLA retaliation, ADA retaliation, disability discrimination, wrongful termination after medical leave, or denial of reasonable workplace accommodations.
Were you fired, demoted, disciplined, or treated unfairly after requesting medical leave or time off for a medical condition? You may have an employment retaliation or wrongful termination claim. Call (773) 770-4771 to schedule a consultation with a Chicago medical leave retaliation attorney.
Employees should not have to fear losing their jobs simply because they need time away from work for surgery, medical treatment, recovery, or a serious health condition.
Unfortunately, some employers respond to medical leave requests by questioning an employee’s commitment, issuing disciplinary warnings, reducing work hours, denying promotions, or terminating employment.
At Pinkston Law Group, P.C., Chicago employment attorney Danielle A. Pinkston represents employees who experience retaliation for requesting medical leave in Illinois, including wrongful termination and other adverse employment actions involving protected leave requests.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) prohibits covered employers from retaliating against eligible employees for exercising or attempting to exercise protected medical leave rights.
You do not necessarily have to take medical leave before retaliation becomes unlawful. An employer may violate the FMLA by punishing you for attempting to exercise protected leave rights.
If your employer retaliated against you after requesting medical leave, our firm can evaluate whether your rights were violated.
Call (773) 770-4771 to schedule an employment law consultation.
Learn more about our Chicago FMLA and Medical Leave Attorney services and our Chicago Employment Law Practice.
Retaliation for requesting medical leave occurs when an employer takes prohibited action against an employee because the employee requested, attempted to request, or exercised legally protected medical leave rights.
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, qualifying employees are protected from retaliation for attempting to exercise their FMLA rights.
Employers cannot lawfully use protected FMLA requests or leave as a negative factor in employment decisions.
Examples of potential medical leave retaliation include:
The U.S. Department of Labor’s FMLA Employee Protections explain that employers cannot punish employees for requesting or using protected FMLA leave.
Not every negative employment action following a medical leave request is unlawful. Whether retaliation occurred depends on the employee’s protected rights, the employer’s reasons, and the available evidence.
An employer generally cannot lawfully fire an eligible employee because the employee requested or attempted to exercise protected FMLA leave rights.
For example, an employee informs a supervisor that a scheduled surgery will require several weeks away from work.
The supervisor becomes frustrated about finding someone to cover the employee’s responsibilities.
Two days later, the employer terminates the employee because of the anticipated medical leave.
Depending on the circumstances, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination after requesting medical leave.
An employer cannot avoid FMLA protections simply by terminating an employee before the requested leave begins when the termination is because of protected activity.
However, employers may still make legitimate employment decisions unrelated to the leave request.
The critical issue is whether the employer punished the employee because of the protected request.
Employees who were fired after asking for time off should also review our Wrongful Termination Based on Retaliation page.
Potentially unlawful retaliation can occur before an employer formally approves a medical leave request.
An employee does not necessarily have to receive final FMLA approval before receiving protection for attempting to exercise qualifying rights.
For example, an employee requests leave for an upcoming medical procedure.
Human resources asks the employee to submit medical certification paperwork.
Before the employee has a reasonable opportunity to complete the process, management terminates the employee because of the anticipated absence.
The employee may have an FMLA claim even though the leave had not yet begun.
The employer’s knowledge of the potential need for FMLA leave and the reason for termination are important.
Under the Department of Labor’s FMLA guidance, employees do not need to use the words “FMLA leave” in their initial request, but they must provide enough information for the employer to recognize that the leave may qualify.
No. Employees do not necessarily have to mention the FMLA by name when initially requesting qualifying leave.
An employee may notify an employer of a serious medical condition or medical procedure without understanding the legal terminology.
For example, an employee tells a supervisor:
“I have surgery scheduled next month, and my doctor says I will need approximately four weeks off to recover.”
That communication may provide sufficient information to alert the employer that the employee needs potentially FMLA-qualifying leave.
Employers may request additional information or medical certification to determine whether the leave qualifies.
Employees must also comply with applicable notice requirements and ordinary leave-request procedures unless an exception applies.
The Department of Labor’s FMLA Fact Sheet explains the employee notice requirements.
Employees may need time away from work for medically necessary surgery, postoperative treatment, or recovery.
An employer’s frustration about the inconvenience of the absence does not justify retaliation for a protected medical leave request.
For example, an employee tells HR that a scheduled surgery will require six weeks away from work.
Before the employee requests leave, the employee has consistently received satisfactory performance evaluations.
After the request, management suddenly issues disciplinary warnings and removes important responsibilities.
If the employer’s actions were motivated by the protected leave request, the employee may have a retaliation claim.
Evidence may include:
Employees who experience retaliation for requesting time off for surgery should contact a Chicago medical leave attorney promptly.
The FMLA may protect qualifying employees who need leave because a serious health condition prevents them from performing their jobs.
Examples of medical circumstances that may qualify include:
For example, an employee experiencing a serious health condition requests several weeks of medical leave.
The employer responds by threatening to replace the employee unless the request is withdrawn.
That conduct may constitute unlawful interference with or retaliation for exercising protected FMLA rights.
A medical diagnosis alone does not automatically establish FMLA eligibility. The condition and leave must satisfy applicable legal requirements.
The Department of Labor’s FMLA Frequently Asked Questions explain qualifying medical conditions and employee rights.
An employer may violate the FMLA by threatening or discouraging an employee from exercising protected leave rights.
Potential examples include statements such as:
Such statements may be relevant evidence of unlawful retaliation or interference, depending on the circumstances.
The Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #77B explains that employers may not discourage employees from exercising protected FMLA rights.
Employees should document threats, identify witnesses, and preserve relevant communications.
A negative performance review may be evidence of retaliation when it is issued because an employee requested protected medical leave.
For example, an employee has consistently received positive performance evaluations.
After requesting leave for surgery, the employee receives an unexpectedly negative evaluation.
The supervisor then cites the evaluation as a reason to deny a promotion or terminate employment.
The change in performance assessments may support a retaliation claim when other evidence connects it to the protected request.
Important considerations include:
A negative review alone does not automatically prove unlawful retaliation.
However, it may become important evidence when combined with other circumstances.
An employer may lawfully use performance improvement plans for legitimate performance concerns.
However, an employer cannot use a performance improvement plan as a means of punishing an employee for requesting protected medical leave.
For example, an employee notifies management that a serious medical condition will require FMLA leave.
Shortly afterward, the employer places the employee on a performance improvement plan despite previously satisfactory performance.
If the plan was imposed because of the protected leave request, it may support a retaliation claim.
Relevant evidence may include prior evaluations, productivity records, comparable employee treatment, and communications showing management’s reaction to the request.
Reducing an employee’s work hours because of a protected medical leave request may violate the FMLA.
For example, an employee works 40 hours per week.
The employee requests qualifying medical leave for an upcoming procedure.
The employer responds by reducing the employee’s schedule to 20 hours because management believes the employee will become unreliable.
That decision may constitute unlawful retaliation.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Retaliation Guidance identifies reduced work hours in response to protected FMLA activity as an example of unlawful retaliation.
Not all medical leave involves a continuous absence from work.
Some employees require intermittent leave for recurring treatment, serious health conditions, or medically necessary appointments.
For example, an employee requests intermittent FMLA leave for recurring medical treatment.
The supervisor becomes frustrated about the employee’s anticipated absences and removes the employee from a preferred schedule because of the protected request.
Depending on the facts, that action may support a retaliation claim.
Employees may also experience retaliation when employers improperly count protected intermittent leave against attendance policies.
The Department of Labor’s FMLA Employee Protections explain that employers cannot use protected leave as a negative factor in disciplinary decisions.
An employer generally cannot lawfully deny an employee a promotion because the employee requested or exercised protected FMLA rights.
For example, an employee applies for a supervisory position.
Shortly afterward, the employee requests medical leave for surgery.
A manager states that the employee is no longer being considered because the company needs someone who will be available throughout the upcoming months.
If the denial is based on protected FMLA activity, the employee may have a retaliation claim.
Employees should preserve promotion announcements, application records, communications, and evidence concerning the employer’s selection process.
An employer cannot lawfully replace an employee as punishment for requesting protected FMLA leave.
However, the FMLA does not prohibit every temporary staffing arrangement or guarantee continued employment when an unrelated, lawful employment action would have occurred.
For example, an employee requests four weeks of FMLA leave for surgery.
The employer hires temporary coverage for the employee’s absence.
Temporary coverage alone does not establish retaliation.
But if the employer decides to permanently replace the employee because the employee requested protected leave, the circumstances may support a claim.
The distinction depends on the employer’s actual reasons and the employee’s statutory rights.
A termination occurring immediately after a protected leave request may raise concerns about retaliation.
For example:
The timing may support an inference of retaliation, particularly when combined with evidence of negative comments, inconsistent explanations, or a satisfactory employment history.
However, close timing alone does not automatically establish liability.
An employer may have a legitimate reason for termination unrelated to the leave request.
The central question is whether the protected medical leave request was an unlawful factor in the employment decision.
Our Chicago Employment Law Practice evaluates termination decisions involving protected workplace rights.
Proving medical leave retaliation generally involves establishing that the employee engaged in protected activity and that the employer took prohibited action because of that activity.
Evidence may include an email to HR, a leave application, a conversation with a supervisor, or other notice of a potentially qualifying need for leave.
The employer or relevant decision-maker knew of the protected request or attempted exercise of FMLA rights.
Examples may include termination, demotion, reduced hours, retaliatory discipline, or denial of advancement.
Evidence must establish the required causal connection under the governing legal theory.
Relevant evidence may include:
The applicable causation standard and method of proof depend on the particular FMLA claim.
A Chicago medical leave retaliation attorney can evaluate whether the evidence supports litigation.
Medical leave retaliation and FMLA interference are related but distinct legal theories.
Medical leave retaliation focuses on prohibited punishment because an employee requested, attempted to exercise, or used protected FMLA rights.
FMLA interference focuses on conduct that improperly interferes with, restrains, or denies the exercise or attempted exercise of FMLA rights.
For example:
An employer fires an employee because the employee requested protected medical leave. That may support a retaliation claim.
An employer improperly refuses to provide qualifying FMLA leave. That may support an interference claim.
Some employer conduct may implicate both theories.
The Department of Labor’s FMLA protections guidance explains the prohibition against both interference and retaliation.
FMLA lawsuits generally must be filed within two years of the last event constituting the alleged violation.
A three-year limitations period applies to willful violations.
These deadlines arise under 29 U.S.C. § 2617.
Employees may also contact the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division about suspected FMLA violations.
Unlike many employment discrimination claims, an ordinary FMLA private lawsuit generally does not require first obtaining an EEOC right-to-sue notice.
Employees should not assume that internal HR investigations or negotiations extend the applicable limitations period.
Employees who establish FMLA violations may be entitled to remedies authorized by federal law.
Potential relief includes:
The FMLA generally does not authorize emotional distress damages or punitive damages in private civil actions.
The amount recoverable depends on the employee’s losses, the employer’s conduct, and the governing legal standards.
An experienced Chicago FMLA attorney can evaluate the potential value of a claim.
Employees who believe they experienced retaliation should act promptly to preserve relevant evidence.
Keep a copy of your leave request. Preserve emails, HR forms, and written communications.
Document your employer’s response. Record statements, threats, disciplinary action, or changes in your work assignments.
Preserve performance records. Keep lawfully accessible evaluations and documents showing your employment history.
Create a timeline. Record when you requested leave, when management learned of the request, and when adverse actions occurred.
Identify witnesses. Keep the names of individuals who heard relevant statements or observed the employer’s actions.
Do not improperly remove employer records. Preserve only documents you are legally permitted to access or retain.
Consult an employment attorney promptly. An attorney can evaluate the applicable law, filing deadlines, and evidence.
At Pinkston Law Group, P.C., we understand that employees who request medical leave are often trying to manage serious health concerns while maintaining their employment and financial stability.
Employees should not have to face termination or retaliation simply because they attempt to exercise legally protected leave rights.
Attorney Danielle A. Pinkston represents employees throughout Chicago and Illinois in employment disputes involving:
Our firm reviews leave requests, employer communications, disciplinary records, performance histories, and other evidence to evaluate whether unlawful retaliation occurred.
Learn more about our FMLA and Medical Leave Practice, Chicago Employment Law Services, and Wrongful Termination Based on Retaliation.
An employer generally cannot lawfully terminate an eligible employee because the employee requested or attempted to exercise protected FMLA rights.
Potentially. Protection against retaliation may apply to qualifying attempts to exercise FMLA rights before the leave begins.
Not necessarily. An employee’s initial request must provide sufficient information to alert the employer to a potentially qualifying need for leave.
An employer cannot lawfully punish an eligible employee because the employee requested qualifying FMLA leave for surgery or recovery.
An employer cannot lawfully discipline an employee because of protected FMLA activity, including qualifying requests for intermittent leave.
It may be evidence of retaliation if the employer imposed it because of protected activity. The employer’s reasons and surrounding circumstances matter.
An employer generally cannot lawfully use protected FMLA activity as a negative factor in promotion decisions.
Potentially. Threats intended to discourage protected FMLA activity may support an interference claim or other applicable claim.
Generally two years, or three years for willful violations, subject to the applicable statutory requirements.
Emotional distress damages are generally unavailable under the FMLA’s private civil enforcement provision. Other independently established claims may have different remedies.
Requesting legally protected medical leave should not cost you your job.
If your employer fired, demoted, disciplined, threatened, or otherwise retaliated against you after requesting medical leave, you may have legal options.
Pinkston Law Group, P.C. represents employees throughout Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois in medical leave retaliation, FMLA violations, and wrongful termination matters.
Attorney Danielle A. Pinkston can review your circumstances, explain your rights, and evaluate whether your employer violated applicable employment laws.
Schedule an Employment Law Consultation Today.
Pinkston Law Group, P.C.
Attorney Danielle A. Pinkston
30 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1004
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Phone: (773) 770-4771
Explore our Chicago Employment Law Practice.
Advertising Material. This content provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. Contacting the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Whether you’re dealing with a family law, civil rights violation, or a personal injury case, you and your family’s best interests are our top priority. Attorney Danielle A. Pinkston of Pinkston Law Group utilizes her extensive legal knowledge to resolve your case, no matter how complex it may be. We share your goals and work closely with you, delivering the exceptional services you need.
Injury lawyer who is ready to help those who have suffered as a result of an auto crash or other personal injury.
A skilled matrimonial and family law attorney ready to vigorously advocate for you.
Aggressive and dedicated civil rights attorney helping individuals get the justice they deserve.