This is a trial court decision (and I'm going to guess an unpublished one, but even if it were published it would have no binding effect on other cases). And I'd expect this to get struck down if appealed if the description here is correct. Whether or not the ruling on pregnancy discrimination is correct (which seems likely), the ruling on FMLA retaliation described could not be more obviously incorrect: being fired to taking the leave, whether or not one was allowed to take the leave, is bright-line prohibited retaliation.<p>EDIT: Having gone from the linked article to it's source to the actual decision text, I think the decision is fine, and it looks like there is some real incompetence on the part of plaintiff's counsel, given the factual allegations.<p>(1) despite describing what is plainly FMLA retaliation, plaintiff claimed interference with FMLA rights, not retaliation.<p>(2) On both the FMLA claims and the one state law claim the Court addresses directly, plaintiff failed to counter the defenses motion to dismiss, permitting the court to dismiss the claims without even evaluating the arguments.<p>I kind of wonder if the plaintiff here was a pro se litigant or if they just hired completely incompetent counsel? Because it looks like, given the alleged facts, it was a slam dunk case that was lost because the plaintiff made claims that were close to, but just off of, the right ones in some cases, and also failed to either stand up for or seek to amend them when the defense responded.