The Emplawyerologist blog has analysis of Langenbach v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 14-1022 (7th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014), which addressed employer liability under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

Suppose you own a retail store and you recently promoted Abby, your shelf stocker of 15 years,  to Assistant Manager. Her first performance evaluation notes significant issues. Later that same year, you begin placing her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for lack of leadership, pushing decisions off on her subordinates, insufficient time on the sales floor, not following appropriate procedures, and lack of professionalism. Unfortunately, do not actually complete the PIP with the required follow-up meetings.  Abby’s next performance review indicates that the deficiencies have, continued. About three months later, Abby informs you she needs surgery. You approve her request for FMLA leave. Five months after Abby returns from FMLA leave, noting that the performance issues persist, you ultimately terminate Abby. Abby sues for FMLA retaliation. What happens now? This is what happened in Langenbach v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 14-1022 (8-4-2014). The 7th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the claim. Wal-Mart having evidence of its valid reasons for termination, did a lot right here. If the employee had shown that she had been performing her job well and was let go after taking FMLA leave,  outcome probably would have been different.

The post also discusses other recent cases involving the FMLA, all of which is well worth a read.