Stryker team leader alleges his manager treated approved FMLA leave as a performance problem

Most of the evidence in the complaint is paperwork Stryker created. The Fortune 500 device maker, based in Kalamazoo ^[5], approved an accommodation leave in April 2024, before he qualified for FMLA leave ^[6]. In late January 2025 he was sent home for "profuse sweating," a symptom of his diabetes, and asked for continuous FMLA leave ^[22]. The approvals widened from there, including a continuous block in early March ^[7]. The complaint says he finished his required work wherever he was, and that his 2023 review rated him "Valued Performance" ^[8][3].

The filing sets a manager against those approvals. It alleges the manager treated the absences as an attendance and performance problem while knowing the leave had been formally approved ^[9]. At an in-person meeting on July 24, 2025, the manager allegedly asked whether, given his health issues, he was "the right person" for his position ^[10].

After that, the complaint is a list of dates. The HR partner who received his email, it alleges, "failed to conduct any investigation or follow up" ^[11]. Once he filed an ethics report, the manager allegedly cancelled every scheduled one-on-one ^[13]. He took approved FMLA leave on September 18, 19 and 22 ^[14]. On the morning of September 30, the same manager and the same HR partner fired him by phone while he was on his way to work ^[15]. That was 68 days after the remark ^[23], and about three months before his approval for eight episodes a month was due to end ^[24]. The complaint also alleges Stryker soon replaced him with someone who has no medical condition, disability or approved FMLA leave ^[18].

The fair objection is that a complaint is one side's account, and none of it has been tested. The report of the suit does not include a response from Stryker. I'd expect the dispute to come down to records. The filing calls the gift card and early-departure reasons "false and a pretext for discrimination and retaliation" ^[17]. If Stryker produces documentation of either issue, the timeline loses much of its force. The complaint says the personnel file contains none, and that he had no write-ups or warnings before the leave and the complaint ^[17].

For operators, the trade-off is speed against a second reviewer. Checking attendance-based discipline against approved leave before acting slows supervisors down and takes some discretion from them. Leaving the decision to the supervisor alone means the company answers for what that supervisor says in a one-on-one. The decision an employer makes this quarter is who reviews discipline for someone on approved leave. The consequence next quarter is whether its own files support the reasons it later gives. Here, Stryker approved the leave and its HR partner received the complaint about the manager, both before the firing ^[7][11].

The case is at its first filing. The worker filed an EEOC charge in February 2026, received a right-to-sue letter in July and sued inside the 90-day window ^[20]. The suit seeks lost wages, punitive damages and other relief, with more than $75,000 in controversy ^[21].