The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling Tuesday that upheld the City of Clarksburg's decision to terminate an employee who violated workplace conduct policies after returning from medical leave.
In *Dominique Spatafore v. City of Clarksburg*, the appeals court rejected claims that the West Virginia municipality retaliated against Spatafore for taking protected medical leave under federal and state law. The unpublished opinion, issued Jan. 7, represents the conclusion of a legal dispute that began in 2022.
According to the court record, Spatafore was terminated approximately three months after returning from medical leave while employed by the City of Clarksburg. During that intervening period, she violated established employee conduct policies through her handling of workplace complaints.
The court found that Spatafore sent workplace complaints directly to the Mayor's wife and the City Council, bypassing her immediate supervisors as required by city policy. She also posted additional complaints about her workplace on Facebook, further violating the municipality's conduct standards.
The City pointed to these specific instances of policy violations when it terminated Spatafore's employment. City officials argued that the firing was based on legitimate misconduct unrelated to her previous medical leave.
Spatafore challenged her termination by filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, bringing claims under both the Family and Medical Leave Act and the West Virginia Human Rights Act. She alleged that her firing constituted unlawful retaliation for taking protected medical leave.
Chief District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh initially ruled in favor of the City, finding that the municipality had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the termination. Spatafore appealed that decision to the Fourth Circuit.
The case was argued before a three-judge panel on Oct. 23, 2025. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Roger L. Gregory, Pamela A. Harris, and G. Steven Agee Richardson.
Circuit Judge Gregory wrote the majority opinion affirming the district court's ruling, with Judge Richardson joining the majority. However, Judge Harris wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, suggesting some disagreement among the panel members about aspects of the case.
The split decision indicates that while the court ultimately sided with the City, there may have been questions about certain elements of the case that warranted further discussion in the separate opinion.
Spatafore was represented by attorneys from Atkinson & Frampton, PLLC, including Natalie Rose Atkinson, who argued the case, and John-Mark Atkinson, who worked on the brief. The City was represented by lawyers from Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, with Tiffany R. Durst handling oral arguments and Nathaniel D. Griffith working on the brief.
The Family and Medical Leave Act provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for serious health conditions and prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who exercise these rights. Similarly, the West Virginia Human Rights Act protects employees from discrimination and retaliation based on protected activities.
However, these protections do not shield employees from discipline for legitimate workplace misconduct that occurs after they return from leave. Courts consistently hold that employers retain the right to enforce conduct policies and terminate employees for violations unrelated to their protected leave.
The case illustrates the challenges employees face when alleging retaliation after taking medical leave. To succeed on such claims, workers must typically prove that their protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action and that the employer's stated reasons for the action are pretextual.
The timing of Spatafore's termination - three months after returning from leave - could have supported an inference of retaliation. However, the documented policy violations provided the City with legitimate grounds for the firing that were unconnected to her medical leave.
The Fourth Circuit's affirmance suggests the appeals court agreed that the City's actions were justified by Spatafore's misconduct rather than motivated by retaliation for her protected medical leave.
Because the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion, the decision will not serve as binding precedent for future cases in the circuit. However, it provides guidance on how courts analyze retaliation claims when employees engage in misconduct after returning from protected leave.
The case demonstrates the importance for employees to continue following workplace policies after returning from medical leave, as violations can provide employers with legitimate grounds for termination that may defeat retaliation claims.
For municipal employers, the decision reinforces the principle that they can enforce conduct policies consistently, even for employees who have recently exercised rights under leave statutes, provided the enforcement is based on legitimate policy violations rather than retaliatory motives.