Monaco v. DXC Technology, 1:18-cv-00372

Nora Monaco worked for CSC on the AT&T account and took FMLA leave in 2008, 2014, 2015, and 2016 to care for her mother; she was reinstated after each leave with the same or greater duties.
CSC’s AT&T group underwent repeated reductions in force (RIFs) to cut costs; managers were asked to rank direct reports before each RIF.
In January 2017 CSC eliminated two positions in Zipp’s group; Monaco and Joseph Marenda were laid off. Monaco was a lower-ranked performer and her duties were redistributed to higher-rated employees (including employees who had taken FMLA leave).
Monaco alleges her termination was retaliation for exercising FMLA rights and points to supervisor texts asking her to work while on leave and a remark relayed by project manager John Pennisi.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (RIF); the court assumed a prima facie case but granted summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute that defendants’ RIF explanation was not pretextual.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Monaco’s termination was FMLA retaliation	Monaco: termination motivated by her FMLA leave; evidence includes texts asking for work while on leave, Pennisi’s report of Zipp’s remark, and selection choices	CSC/DXC: termination occurred as part of an ordinary RIF; Monaco was low-ranked, duties reassigned, multiple team members had taken FMLA	Court: Grant summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff failed to show defendants’ RIF reason was pretextual
Admissibility and weight of Pennisi’s statement (about preferring a 12‑month employee)	Monaco: Pennisi’s account shows Zipp considered leave when staffing and should be admissible	Defendants: hearsay / insufficient to prove retaliatory motive	Court: Statement likely admissible under agent admission exception but too remote and unconnected to the 2017 termination to show pretext
Whether supervisor communications during leave indicate retaliatory animus	Monaco: texts/emails asking about work while she was on leave show negative view of leave	Defendants: Monaco had invited contact, Zipp told her not to feel obligated, and reinstate‑and‑RIF facts undermine retaliatory inference	Court: Communications do not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415 (elements of prima facie FMLA retaliation claim)
Walsh v. New York City Hous. Auth., 828 F.3d 70 (permitting courts to proceed to pretext when defendant offers legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Ctrs., Inc., 864 F.3d 158 (FMLA retaliation actionable under §2615(a)(1))
Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (standard for proving pretext at summary judgment)
Tomassi v. Insignia Fin. Grp., Inc., 478 F.3d 111 (remote/oblique remarks are weak evidence of discriminatory motive)