## Facts

- Dorothy E. Goelzer worked for Sheboygan County from 1986 and became administrative assistant to County Administrative Coordinator Adam N. Payne after his hiring in 1999.
- For years, Payne gave Goelzer favorable evaluations, including strong attendance ratings and comments that she was “rarely absent.”
- Starting in 2002, Goelzer took substantial, authorized leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for serious medical issues affecting her and family members.
- By 2005–2006, Payne allegedly made comments indicating dissatisfaction with her use of FMLA leave and the frequency of her absences.
- During this period, Payne considered restructuring administrative support and asserted he wanted an assistant with a broader, higher-level skill set.
- In 2006, Goelzer was approved for about two months of FMLA leave for foot surgery.
- Two weeks before the scheduled leave began, Payne terminated Goelzer.
- The County later hired a replacement whom it claimed had greater qualifications for the expanded role.
- Goelzer sued the County and Payne, alleging FMLA interference (including denial of reinstatement rights) and FMLA retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable jury could find FMLA interference where Goelzer was terminated two weeks before approved FMLA leave, given evidence that the discharge was not independent of her FMLA use.
2. Whether a reasonable jury could find FMLA retaliation where the discharge followed extensive FMLA leave and immediately preceded additional planned leave, given evidence of suspicious timing, comments, and possible pretext.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants on the FMLA interference and retaliation claims.
- The court held that Goelzer presented sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that her FMLA leave factored into the termination decision.
- The court remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- FMLA interference focuses on whether the employer denied or interfered with substantive FMLA rights, including reinstatement; an employer avoids liability only by showing it would have made the same decision regardless of the employee’s FMLA leave.
- FMLA retaliation requires proof that the employer took an adverse action because the employee exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA rights; circumstantial evidence may establish causation and pretext.
- At summary judgment, a plaintiff can reach a jury by presenting evidence such as supervisor comments disparaging FMLA use, a history of positive evaluations inconsistent with the stated reason for discharge, and close timing between protected leave and termination.
- When the record supports competing inferences about whether the stated justification (e.g., a desire for a broader skill set) is genuine or pretextual, credibility and motive are for the jury, not summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that comments about FMLA leave, Goelzer’s favorable work history, and the timing of her discharge shortly before approved leave created genuine disputes of fact on both interference and retaliation, requiring a jury determination.


Goelzer v. Sheboygan County, Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2010)