A former warehouse worker is suing a major retail corporation for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Matthew Frothingham filed the complaint against Target Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 20, 2024.
The lawsuit, initiated by Frothingham, centers around claims that Target Corporation interfered with his FMLA rights and retaliated against him for requesting and utilizing those rights. According to the complaint, Frothingham was employed by Target as a warehouse worker from January 13, 2022, until his termination on April 10, 2024. He asserts that he was qualified for his position and consistently met or exceeded performance standards.
In early March 2024, Frothingham submitted paperwork to Target's Leave and Disability department to qualify for intermittent FMLA leave to care for his mother, who suffers from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The medical documentation indicated that the need for leave began on January 2, 2024, and would continue through December 30, 2024. However, Target approved intermittent FMLA leave only from February 1 to July 31, excluding January when Frothingham had already missed several days due to his caregiving responsibilities.
Despite not taking any days off in March and using only a few days in February under FMLA provisions, Frothingham received a call from Human Resources on April 9 requesting additional paperwork for the days missed in January. He contends that he had already provided all necessary documentation indicating that the leave should have started in early January. The following day, HR informed him via email that he was terminated.
Frothingham alleges that Target failed to inform him of his eligibility status and rights under FMLA and did not notify him whether his absences could be designated as FMLA leave. He claims this lack of communication constitutes interference with his FMLA rights. Furthermore, he argues that his termination was an act of retaliation by Target for exercising those rights.
In seeking redress from the court, Frothingham requests back pay with interest, front pay, compensation for lost benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest if applicable, and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The case is being handled by Chad W. Eisenback of Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., representing Matthew Frothingham. The case ID is 1:24-cv-05158.