A recent Minnesota District Court case is strong evidence that you should have the right employee handle termination when there is a potential claim of retaliation or interference with an employee’s FMLA rights. When a new CEO arrived, a long-term employee was concerned about her job because the new CEO suggested that there needed to be some changes in her position and inquired about whether she would want to work a more limited schedule. As a result, she suffered a panic attack and asked for an intermittent FMLA leave. The leave was denied because they claimed that it was not a serious health condition. The Court did analyze whether or not a serious health condition was involved, but found persuasive evidence to survive a summary judgment motion since the CEO, when asked about whether or not the FMLA application had anything to do with the decision to eliminate her position, allegedly said “that and other things”. The other things seemed to be a restructuring of the company, which might have been sufficient to obtain summary judgment if the alleged statement had not been made. Pierce v. Teachers Federal Credit Union (D.C. Minn. 2010)