When A Reduction In Force Is Legal—And When It Is Wrongful Termination
FMLA. Medical leave. Layoff. Few words create more panic for an employee than hearing, “Your position has been eliminated,” while still on protected medical leave. It feels like wrongful termination and retaliation. Sometimes it is. Sometimes the employer truly eliminated the position because the business no longer needed it. The hard part—and the question that decides many employment law cases—is proving which explanation is true.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit confronted that question in Knight v. Cambria Co., LLC, No. 25-3464, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22335 (8th Cir. July 28, 2026). Anthony Knight took approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) after his father’s death left him struggling with depression. Approximately six weeks later, while he remained on medical leave, his employer eliminated his position as part of a claimed reduction in force. Knight believed he had been wrongfully fired for exercising his FMLA rights. Cambria responded that declining production meant it no longer needed two process engineering technicians, retained the more senior technician, and redistributed Knight’s work instead of hiring a replacement. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that this undisputed evidence established a legitimate business reason for the termination and that Knight failed to produce sufficient evidence that the reduction in force was a pretext for FMLA discrimination or that his termination was connected to his medical leave. The court therefore affirmed summary judgment on both his FMLA discrimination and interference claims.
Legal Takeaways
- An employer may lawfully include an employee on FMLA or medical leave in a legitimate reduction in force. To establish wrongful termination, the employee must produce evidence that the stated business reason was a pretext for discrimination or that FMLA leave actually motivated the decision.
- Being wrongfully fired during medical leave does not, by itself, establish an FMLA violation. Courts examine whether the employer’s explanation is supported by the evidence or whether it conceals unlawful discrimination.
Can My Employer Include Me In A Reduction In Force While I Am On FMLA Leave?
Yes. An employer may lawfully include an employee on FMLA or medical leave in a legitimate reduction in force. The dividing line is straightforward: eliminating a position because the business no longer needs it is lawful; eliminating it because the employee exercised FMLA rights is wrongful termination. The FMLA protects an employee’s right to take leave—not a position that would have disappeared regardless. Knight held that “an employee who requests FMLA leave has no greater protection against termination for reasons unrelated to the FMLA than [the employee] did before taking the leave.” 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22335, at *19–20.
That distinction decided Knight. After his father’s death, Anthony Knight struggled with depression. His supervisor suggested that he take FMLA leave, and Cambria approved the request. About six weeks later, while Knight remained on approved medical leave, the company informed him that his position had been eliminated. To almost any employee, those facts look like wrongful termination. The law, however, required Knight to prove something more: that the reduction in force was not the real reason he lost his job.
Cambria offered evidence that the termination had nothing to do with FMLA. The decisionmaker testified that production had slowed, plant leadership had already begun evaluating ways to reduce headcount, and the company no longer needed two process engineering technicians. Other witnesses corroborated that testimony. Cambria retained the more senior technician, redistributed Knight’s work to other departments, and never hired a replacement. Knight held that “a reduction-in-force for reducing costs and improving efficiency” is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge and concluded that the undisputed record supported Cambria’s explanation.
The fact that Cambria never replaced Knight mattered. If an employer claims a reduction in force but immediately hires someone else to perform the same job, the business justification begins to unravel. That evidence did not exist here. Instead, the record showed Cambria closed an existing job posting without interviewing anyone and redistributed Knight’s work after eliminating his position. Those facts reinforced the conclusion that the company eliminated a job—not simply the person holding it.
A real reduction in force eliminates positions. A fake one eliminates people.
That is where the best employment law attorney or lawyer begins the investigation. Did the work actually disappear? Did someone quietly assume the same duties? Did the employer continue hiring for the position after claiming it was eliminated? Those questions often determine whether a reduction in force is a legitimate business decision or evidence of wrongful termination.
Practical Tip: If your employer says your job was eliminated during medical leave, immediately preserve job postings, internal announcements, LinkedIn hiring notices, and organizational charts. Those documents often reveal whether the position truly disappeared or whether the employer simply replaced you under a different title.
Best FMLA Lawyer Blogs on Point:
How Can I Prove My Employer’s Reduction In Force Was Just An Excuse To Fire Me?
You prove it by exposing pretext. In employment law, pretext means the employer’s stated reason for firing an employee is not the real one. That is the battleground in most wrongful termination cases. Knight held that the ultimate question is whether the evidence would allow a jury to conclude the employer intentionally discriminated because the employee exercised FMLA rights. Quoting the United States Supreme Court, Knight held: “It is not enough to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.” Id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000)).
Knight argued Cambria’s reduction in force was nothing more than a cover story. He pointed out that the company produced almost no contemporaneous documents showing a production slowdown or planned headcount reduction, even though its Chief Human Resources Officer testified that management ordinarily documented those decisions. He also challenged the accuracy of the OWBPA disclosure, questioned the decisionmaker’s memory, and argued that changes to deposition testimony undermined credibility. Those arguments attacked Cambria’s process. The problem was that they did not prove discriminatory motive.
Knight rejected those arguments for a simple reason. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a federal court is not “a super-personnel department with authority to review the wisdom or fairness of business judgments made by employers.” A poorly documented decision, standing alone, does not establish wrongful termination. The missing link was evidence connecting Cambria’s alleged deficiencies to Knight’s FMLA leave. Without that connection, the court treated the alleged mistakes as imperfect business practices—not unlawful discrimination.
Knight’s credibility attacks met the same fate. He argued the decisionmaker clarified testimony about knowing Knight was on FMLA, could not remember details about another employee identified in the reduction in force, and gave inconsistent deposition answers. But other witnesses corroborated the critical facts: production had slowed, management concluded one process engineering technician could handle the remaining workload, the more senior technician was retained, and Knight’s work was redistributed rather than assigned to a replacement. The court concluded those disputes did not create a genuine issue of material fact.
Pretext is not about proving the employer was wrong. It is about proving the employer was lying.
That distinction separates suspicion from proof. The best employment law attorney or lawyer looks for evidence that the employer’s explanation changed over time, conflicts with contemporaneous documents, or was applied differently to similarly situated employees who did not take FMLA or medical leave. Those are the facts that transform a questionable reduction in force into evidence of wrongful termination.
Practical Tip: If your employer says your layoff resulted from a reduction in force, preserve documents showing when the decision was made, who participated, and the criteria used to select affected employees. Those records often reveal whether the business explanation existed before your FMLA request or appeared only after your termination.
Best Medical Leave Attorney Blogs on Point:
Can The Timing Of My Layoff Prove Wrongful Termination During Medical Leave?
Sometimes. But Knight held that “mere coincidence of timing” is “rarely sufficient” to prove an employer violated the FMLA. An employee who is wrongfully fired during medical leave still must present evidence that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination. Suspicious timing may raise questions. It rarely answers them.
Knight had suspicious timing. He requested FMLA leave after his father’s death, received approval, and approximately six weeks later—while still on approved medical leave—Cambria eliminated his position. That sequence naturally suggested a connection. Knight held, however, that courts measure timing from when the employer learned the employee planned to take FMLA leave, not from the date the leave was scheduled to end. Here, that interval was approximately six weeks.
The timeline alone was not enough because Cambria offered an independent explanation that predated Knight’s leave. The record showed that production had already slowed, management had begun discussing reducing headcount before Knight requested FMLA, and company leaders concluded they no longer needed two process engineering technicians. Knight held that when a legitimate business reason develops during the same period, the significance of temporal proximity is substantially weakened.
Knight also argued that the managers who decided to terminate him knew he had requested FMLA leave. Knight rejected that argument, holding that “[m]ere knowledge” of protected leave is insufficient to establish pretext. Knowledge may create the opportunity to discriminate, but it does not prove discrimination actually occurred.
Timing starts the investigation. Evidence wins the case.
That is why the best employment law attorney or lawyer never relies on timing alone. The strongest wrongful termination cases combine suspicious timing with changing explanations, contradictory documents, inconsistent testimony, comparator evidence, or proof the claimed reduction in force was never genuine. Together, those facts can transform coincidence into evidence of discrimination.
Practical Tip: Create a timeline as soon as you believe you were wrongfully fired. Include when you requested FMLA, began medical leave, notified your employer, received performance feedback, learned of the reduction in force, and were terminated. A detailed timeline often exposes inconsistencies that become powerful evidence later.
Best Wrongful Termination Law Firm Blogs on Point:
How Do I Find The Best Attorney After Being Fired During Medical Leave?
Every wrongful termination case begins with the same question: What really happened? A good employment law attorney does not assume an employer acted illegally simply because an employee was fired during FMLA or medical leave. The best lawyer digs into the evidence, tests the employer’s explanation, and determines whether the claimed reduction in force was a legitimate business decision or a pretext for discrimination.
That is what Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm does every day. As one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated exclusively to employees’ rights, Spitz has the resources, experience, and courtroom success to investigate wrongful termination, FMLA, medical leave, and reduction in force claims. We offer a free initial consultation, and every accepted case is backed by our No Fee Guarantee. If you believe your employer wrongfully fired you during medical leave, contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm. An experienced attorney can evaluate the evidence, explain your rights, and determine whether your employer’s explanation holds up under the law.
Frequently Asked Questions
An employer may include an employee on FMLA in a legitimate reduction in force if the position would have been eliminated regardless of the leave. The FMLA protects employees from discrimination because they took leave, not from lawful layoffs.
Does Medical Leave Protect Me From Wrongful Termination?
Medical leave does not guarantee that an employee cannot be terminated. An employer may eliminate a position for legitimate business reasons, but it cannot use medical leave or FMLA as a pretext to wrongfully fire an employee.
How Can I Tell If My Employer’s Reduction In Force Was Real?
A legitimate reduction in force usually leaves objective evidence. An employer may eliminate positions, reduce headcount, redistribute work, or stop hiring. If the position is quickly refilled, the employer’s explanation changes, or the same work continues under another title, those facts may support a wrongful termination claim.
What Is Pretext In An FMLA Wrongful Termination Case?
In employment law, pretext means the employer’s stated reason for firing an employee is not the true reason. To prove wrongful termination, an employee must present evidence that the explanation is false and that FMLA, medical leave, or another protected activity actually motivated the termination.
Does My Employer Have To Prove A Reduction In Force Was Legitimate?
When defending a wrongful termination claim, an employer must identify a legitimate business reason for the reduction in force. An employee may challenge that explanation with evidence of inconsistent reasons, contradictory documents, changing testimony, or other facts showing the stated reason was pretextual.
What Evidence Helps Prove I Was Wrongfully Fired During Medical Leave?
The best evidence often includes internal emails, hiring records, organizational charts, performance evaluations, witness testimony, and documents showing the employer continued filling the same position after claiming it had been eliminated in a reduction in force. Those facts may help establish that the stated reason for the termination was not the real one.Employment.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employee rights, employment law, FMLA, medical leave, reduction in force, and wrongful termination blog is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Every employee, employer, workplace, and wrongful termination claim involves different facts, and the outcome of any employment law matter depends on the specific circumstances and applicable law. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, and no promises or guarantees are being made regarding the outcome of any case. This blog is a legal advertisement. If you have questions about a potential FMLA, medical leave, reduction in force, or wrongful termination claim, you should consult a qualified employment lawyer or employment law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation.