The Turner Rule: How Temporal Gaps and Intervening Misconduct Defeat Causation in ADA & FMLA Retaliatory-Termination Claims

1. Introduction

Annette Turner, a Wal-Mart stocker suffering from neuropathy, asthma, and pregnancy-related hypertension, filed a wide-ranging employment action in South Carolina state court after what she described as years of mistreatment. Her complaint asserted eight separate causes of action under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and South Carolina’s Pregnancy Accommodations Act. Wal-Mart removed the matter to federal court and obtained summary judgment on every count. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit (in an unpublished opinion) affirmed. Although unpublished, the decision articulates a clear and instructive principle—now dubbed here the “Turner Rule”—that an extended temporal gap, coupled with an employee’s intervening workplace misconduct, severs the causal chain required for retaliatory-termination and discrimination claims under the ADA and FMLA.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Wal-Mart on all preserved claims:

ADA & FMLA Retaliatory/Wrongful Termination: Turner failed to establish causation. She was terminated in April 2020—over six months after her pregnancy ended and months after her internal complaints—and immediately after a three-week, unexcused absence.
Failure to Accommodate (ADA): Time-barred under the 180-day EEOC charge window; Turner cited no post-August 24, 2019 facts.
Hostile Work Environment (ADA & Title VII): Alleged incidents were too sporadic and mild to satisfy the “severe or pervasive” standard.
Pregnancy Discrimination (Title VII): Deemed to fall with the hostile-environment theory; Turner offered no separate evidence after failing to oppose summary judgment below.
State-law pregnancy claim & FMLA interference: Abandoned on appeal.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Role

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – Provided the burden-shifting framework applied to both ADA and FMLA retaliation claims. Turner could not pass step one (prima facie).
Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998) – Applied McDonnell Douglas to ADA wrongful-termination claims; cited for requisite elements.
Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006) – Clarified prima facie elements for FMLA retaliation.
Reynolds v. American National Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 2012) – Defined the ADA prima facie requirements.
Roberts v. Glenn Industrial Group, Inc., 998 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2021) – Held that a significant temporal gap weakens causal inference.
Sigley v. ND Fairmont LLC, 129 F.4th 256 (4th Cir. 2025) – Reinforced that intervening misconduct undermines any inference of retaliatory motive.
Fox v. General Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001) – Authorized cross-pollination of Title VII hostile-environment standards to ADA claims.
Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments, LLC, 828 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2016); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993); Sunbelt Rentals, 521 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008); Boyer-Liberto, 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) – Together form the “severe or pervasive” matrix for hostile-work-environment claims; applied to reject Turner’s allegations.
Custer v. Pan American Life Insurance, 12 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 1993) – Confirmed that failure to respond to summary-judgment motion does not relieve movant of burden; used to correct a procedural misstep by the district court (though ultimately harmless).
Goodman v. Diggs, 986 F.3d 493 (4th Cir. 2021) – Stated that unverified complaints are not evidence; decisive in disposing of the Title VII pregnancy-discrimination count.

3.2 Core Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning coalesces around three recurring themes:

Causation Requires Temporal Proximity and No Intervening Cause.
• Over six months elapsed between Turner’s protected activities (pregnancy & internal complaints) and her dismissal.
• An undisputed, intervening cause—three straight weeks of no-call/no-show—directly preceded termination.
• Applying Roberts & Sigley, these facts break causal linkage as a matter of law.
Strict Statutory Filing Windows Are Fatal If Unheeded.
Turner’s ADA accommodation claim, although possibly colorable on the merits, was rendered non-actionable because the EEOC charge captured no post-limitations conduct.
“Severe or Pervasive” Remains a High Bar.
The panel reiterated that occasional rudeness, isolated slights, or episodic hostility are insufficient. Absent evidence of repeated, egregious, or humiliating acts, summary judgment is appropriate.

3.3 The Turner Rule & Its Potential Impact

While the opinion is formally “unpublished,” district courts within the Fourth Circuit often consult such decisions for persuasive value. The Turner Rule can be distilled as follows:

Turner Rule. A retaliatory-termination claim under the ADA or FMLA fails as a matter of law when (1) a substantial temporal gap exists between the protected activity and the adverse action, and (2) the employer identifies a legitimate, intervening ground—such as unexcused absence—immediately preceding the termination.

Key anticipated effects:

Employer Defenses Strengthened: HR departments may confidently rely on documented disciplinary events that occur after protected activities to defeat causation.
Plaintiff Strategies Refined: Plaintiffs’ counsel will need to marshall evidence of close temporal proximity or direct statements of retaliatory intent to survive summary judgment.
Hostile-Environment Threshold Clarified: Reinforces prior Fourth-Circuit precedent that “callous” or “rude” behavior—without pervasiveness—does not reach actionable severity.
Filing Deadline Vigilance: Litigants must ensure EEOC charges encompass recent incidents; otherwise, otherwise-viable accommodation theories will be time-barred.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Burden-Shifting (McDonnell Douglas): A three-step evidentiary dance: (1) employee’s prima facie case; (2) employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason; (3) employee’s proof that reason is pretextual.
Temporal Proximity: How close in time the protected activity (e.g., filing an EEOC charge) is to the adverse action (e.g., termination). The closer, the stronger the inference of retaliation.
Intervening Cause: A significant, legitimate event (rule violation, poor performance) occurring after the protected activity but before termination. Breaks the inference of retaliation.
Severe or Pervasive Standard: For a hostile work environment, conduct must be either extremely serious (severe) or frequently recurring (pervasive) to alter employment conditions.
Verified vs. Unverified Complaint: A verified pleading is sworn under oath and can function as evidence; unverified pleadings are mere allegations, insufficient at summary judgment.

5. Conclusion

Turner v. Wal-Mart, though unpublished, crystalizes a practical principle: time and intervening misconduct matter. Where months elapse and an employer can point to a neutral, well-documented ground for discharge, causation under the ADA and FMLA will rarely, if ever, survive summary judgment. The decision also underscores the continuing rigor of the hostile-work-environment and accommodation doctrines, as well as the procedural pitfalls awaiting inattentive litigants. Ultimately, the Turner Rule will likely influence lower-court reasoning, employer policies, and litigation strategy across the Fourth Circuit and beyond.