Radiall USA, Inc. v. Gary T. Ramadei

The Family and Medical Leave Act has been interpreted to permit claims alleging retaliation. The statute applies nationwide, but the causation standard for retaliation claims now depends on geography. The First, Second, Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have held that the FMLA only requires that protected activity was a “negative” or “motivating” factor of an adverse employment action, with the Second and Third Circuits expressly deferring to Department of Labor regulations under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).The Eleventh and Fourth Circuits instead interpret the statute, without deference, to require butfor causation. The Sixth and Seventh Circuits have panel decisions going both ways. The district court, at summary judgment and at trial, applied the then-controlling causation standard in the Second Circuit, which defers to regulations under Chevron. After trial below, this Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). On appeal, petitioner argued that Loper Bright required revisiting the Second Circuit’s prior controlling causation standard, and the issue was fulsomely briefed and argued by both sides, but the Second Circuit refused to address the question.

1. The first question presented is: whether the text of the FMLA, including 29 U.S.C. §2615 and §2617, requires plaintiffs to prove that exercise of rights under the FMLA was the but-for cause of an adverse employment action, or whether courts should defer to the Department of Labor’s lesser standard of causation in 29 C.F.R. §825.220(c).

2. The second question presented is: whether a court of appeals may refuse to decide, on waiver or forfeiture grounds, a purely legal challenge to circuit precedent when an intervening decision of this Court fundamentally alters the governing legal framework after trial but before appellate review, when raising the argument in the trial court was futile because it was foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, and when the issue was raised and fully briefed at the first nonfutile opportunity on appeal.