Opinion ID: 4505178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interference Claim Under the FMLA

Text: Lastly, Woolf contends that Bloomberg violated the FMLA by interfering with his right to take leave under that statute. To prevail on this claim, “a plaintiff must establish that (1) he exercised rights protected under the FMLA; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of retaliatory intent.” Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415, 429 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Similarly, “[i]f the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the defendant must demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions; if the defendant does so, the plaintiff must then show that defendant’s proffered explanation is pretextual.” Id. (citation omitted). There is no question that all of Woolf’s requests for leave were granted. More critically, Woolf failed to produce any evidence that his supervisors dissuaded him from taking any leave or penalized him for doing so. To the contrary, as the District Court noted, Woolf’s direct supervisors encouraged him to take medical leave to manage his migraines and other health problems. See Woolf, 2019 WL 1046656 at . To the extent that Woolf’s interference claim relates to his firing on the day that his third request for leave was granted, that claim is duplicative of his FMLA-retaliation claim and lacks merit for the reasons stated above. 4