A decorated seventeen-year career can unravel with a single phrase in a performance review, especially when that phrase penalizes an employee for absences the law explicitly protects. For many high-performing employees who must take legally protected medical leave, this scenario represents a growing conflict within modern workplaces. The praise for their skills becomes overshadowed by criticism for their “visibility” or “on-site presence,” raising a critical question: Is this fair management or illegal retaliation?
The Approved Absence and the Negative Review
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was specifically designed to protect an employee’s job during serious health conditions, not to safeguard their performance ratings. However, a significant disconnect often emerges between the human resources department, which approves the leave, and a line manager, who evaluates an employee’s annual contributions. This gap is where legal risks fester. A federal lawsuit filed late last year against Abbott Laboratories serves as a powerful case study, illustrating how the collision of leave administration and performance management can expose a company to substantial liability.
This article explores that high-stakes intersection, where the language of performance reviews can be interpreted as a direct penalty for utilizing a protected right. When managers are not trained to distinguish between presence and productivity, or when evaluation metrics are inherently biased toward those who are physically in the office, the company walks a fine legal line. The consequences of crossing it can be severe, transforming a standard employee evaluation into a cornerstone of a major discrimination lawsuit.
Anatomy of a Retaliation Claim
The case of Goski v. Abbott Laboratories brings this conflict into sharp focus. The plaintiff, Brian Goski, was a 47-year-old Senior Manager with a 17-year tenure at the company. His lawsuit alleges wrongful termination as a direct consequence of using approved FMLA leave for a series of documented medical conditions, including hemochromatosis, IBS, anxiety, and PTSD. This case is not about poor performance in the traditional sense; it is about how performance was allegedly redefined to penalize protected absences.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the 2023 performance review, which became a critical piece of evidence. While the evaluation lauded Goski’s competence and leadership abilities, it simultaneously condemned his lack of “visibility.” The lawsuit argues this criticism was a thinly veiled reference to his FMLA-related absences. The legal filing connects the dots, asserting that penalizing an employee for a lack of on-site presence, when that absence is legally protected, constitutes illegal retaliation. The timeline presented in the claim further strengthens this argument, noting that after Goski filed an internal complaint with HR about the review in August 2024, he was terminated on January 14, 2025, a mere five days after he last utilized his FMLA leave.
The Triple Threat of FMLA, ADA, and ADEA
Goski’s legal challenge is multifaceted, leveraging three powerful federal employment laws. The primary claim falls under the FMLA, which prohibits employers from interfering with or retaliating against an employee for exercising their right to take medical leave. The lawsuit contends that by negatively evaluating him for absences caused by his leave, the company effectively penalized him for a legally protected activity.
Beyond the FMLA, the claim extends to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Since Goski’s medical conditions are documented disabilities, the negative performance review could be framed as disability-based discrimination. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, and penalizing an employee for the consequences of their disability runs contrary to the spirit of the law. The lawsuit also includes a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), suggesting that his age was a contributing factor in the decision to terminate him. This multi-pronged legal strategy highlights the significant financial exposure for the employer, as the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages exceeding $75,000, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
Rethinking Performance in the Age of Protected Leave
The issues raised by this case compel organizations to scrutinize their own performance metrics. Evaluation criteria that are inherently tied to physical presence—such as “visibility,” “face time,” or “availability”—can inadvertently punish employees who need FMLA-protected leave. A crucial first step for any HR department is to audit these metrics, ensuring they are not proxies for attendance. The focus must shift from time spent in a chair to the quality and impact of the work produced during the hours an employee is present.
To bridge the gap between HR policy and management practice, targeted training is essential. Leadership must be equipped with the tools to conduct leave-adjusted evaluations. This involves educating managers on how to fairly assess the contributions of employees on intermittent or reduced-schedule leave, emphasizing tangible results and project completions over sheer hours logged. Integrating leave administration and performance management systems can provide a crucial checkpoint, flagging reviews that cite attendance-related issues so HR can verify that protected absences are not being held against an employee.
Building a Compliant and Supportive Culture
Beyond audits and training, organizations must fortify their internal complaint procedures. Employees need a clear, confidential, and non-retaliatory channel to report concerns about FMLA-related discrimination. When a complaint like Goski’s is raised, it must trigger a prompt and thorough investigation. Failure to act on such complaints not only demoralizes the workforce but also significantly weakens a company’s legal defense if the matter escalates. Ultimately, preventing these conflicts required a cultural shift toward measuring outcomes rather than presence. The legal and financial risks demonstrated by the Goski lawsuit underscored the necessity of aligning performance management philosophies with the legal realities of protected leave. By proactively auditing metrics, training managers, and fostering a responsive internal complaint system, companies could better navigate this complex legal landscape and protect themselves from similar challenges. This approach not only mitigated risk but also cultivated a more inclusive and supportive environment for all employees.