An ex-employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is suing the company because he says he was fired from his job after he unknowingly reported to work while he was sick. The lawsuit which was filed in the Southern District of Florida claims that Teva Pharmaceuticals discriminated and retaliated against the employee in relation to the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The complaint details that the plaintiff, Frank Reyes Fontanez, worked for the company or its affiliates in several locations throughout the United States and Puerto Rico between 2005 and 2021. Starting August 2016, Fontanez was employed by the company’s Broward County, Florida Office.

Fontanez came into work on August 10th and over the course of the morning, he began to develop a cough. Fontanez told his supervisor, Jaimie Morales, that he would need some time off in order to take a covid test. Morales agreed, and on August 11th, Fontanez was able to take an antigen test and returned a positive result on the same day.

Fontanez alerted the company of the positive result and requested additional time off for further testing and evaluation of his health. Fontanez details that he spoke with an HR employee on the day his covid test came back positive. The HR employee informed Fontanez that he would need to move forward with additional testing to confirm his positive diagnosis.

On August 12th, Fontanez took another antigen test but tested negative. Fontanez relayed the news to his employer and asked for additional time off to further evaluate his health and undergo any additional testing. On August 13th Fontanez took another antigen test which came back negative. Fontanez again relayed the news to the HR employee he had been in communication with and was told to take a PCR test.

After taking the test on August 14th, his results came back negative. When Fontanez emailed the HR employee he had been talking with, he received an email that detailed, “Hello Frank and thank you for the emails. Great - you are cleared to return to work tomorrow barring any symptoms.”

Later that evening, the same HR employee called Fontanez and explained to him that he would not be able to return to work because there was an investigation being conducted by HR into Fontanez. The HR employee who was in communication with Fontanez about his return to work was not aware of the investigation and explained to Fontanez that he would be suspended from his job duties until the investigation concluded. On August 19th, Fontanez received notice that Teva Pharmaceuticals had terminated him from his position.

In the notice that was given to Fontanez, the company cited several reasons for his termination. The letter explained that he was being fired because he did not leave the building on August 2 when he was asked to do so after showing signs of being sick. The notice did not identify the member of Senior Management who asked Fontanez to leave the building the day he was allegedly sick. Additionally, the termination letter explains despite being ill, Fontanez returned to work on August 3.

Fontanez contends that he was not sick on either of the days listed on the termination notice and that there is no evidence to show that he was. The termination letter also explained that Fontanez was let go because of poor job performance. Fontanez contends that according to his most recent job performance evaluation, there was no indication that his job was in jeopardy because of poor performance.

According to the lawsuit, Fontanez explains that the company denied Fontanez’s FMLA because they refused to give him his job back once his need for the leave ended. The complaint explains, “As a direct, proximate, and substantial result of the interference with the Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA, the Plaintiff suffered monetary harm, including but not limited to a loss of wages and benefits.”

Additionally, Fontanez alleges that he was retaliated against because he engaged in protected activity by taking a job-protected leave and requesting reinstatement. The complaint details the retaliatory behavior including a suspension from his job duties, the termination occurred less than one week after he announced his intentions of returning back to work following his negative covid test, and that the reasons for his termination as explained in the termination notice were not backed by fact or evidence.

In the lawsuit Fontanez seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorney’s fees