In the case of Kane v. Inpatient Med. Servs., Inc., 2019-Ohio-1975, an Ohio appellate court held that a separation agreement may be considered as evidence when the separation agreement impeaches – i.e., contradict – an employer’s explanation for an employee’s termination.
In this case, an executive employee used Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave for the employee’s pregnancy. Upon return from FMLA leave, the employee was allegedly terminated pursuant to a reduction-in-force (“RIF”). The employee sued the employer for FMLA interference and retaliation and sought to introduce two separation agreements from the employer to refute the employer’s assertion that the employee was terminated pursuant to a RIF.
The employer argued that the separation agreements “were not admissible” under Ohio Evid.R. 408. The trial court agreed with the employer and struck the separation agreements from the record and dismissed the employee’s claims.
On appeal, the appellate court disagreed and, instead, found that the separation agreements were properly used “to demonstrate that [the employer’s] proffered reason for termination was false” and, therefore, did not render the separation agreements inadmissible. Kane at ¶ 20. It is important to note that the appellate court did not determine whether the employer actually interfered with the employee’s FMLA leave and/or retaliated against the employee but simply held that the separation agreements must be considered in making such a decision.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.