David Hansen, an Assistant Director of Building Services at Valparaiso University, filed suit after the University eliminated his position while he was on extended medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Hansen alleged that the University interfered with his FMLA rights by failing to reinstate him and retaliated against him for taking leave.
Hansen had worked at the University since 2010 and was promoted to Assistant Director in 2019. In that role, he supervised three building services supervisors and reported to the Director of Building Services, who in turn reported to the Executive Director of Facilities. In early 2023, Hansen underwent surgery and took the full 12 weeks of FMLA leave beginning in February, followed by approved extensions that kept him on leave into May and beyond.
Before Hansen began his leave, University leadership had already begun discussing restructuring the Building Services Department. According to the University, the department was “top-heavy” with management, and leadership believed Hansen’s Assistant Director role added an unnecessary layer. The proposed restructuring eliminated Hansen’s position and had the supervisors report directly to the Director. Although leadership initially discussed adding a fourth supervisor position, that role was not approved or created until approximately a year and a half later.
On May 22, 2023, while Hansen was still on leave, University officials informed him during a videoconference that his position was being eliminated as part of the restructuring. They emphasized that the decision was unrelated to his medical leave and invited him to apply for other positions within the department if they became available. Hansen was also offered either a severance package or a lower-paying position as a Building Services Technician, both of which he declined.
Hansen argued that the restructuring explanation was a pretext and pointed to the timing of his termination, the delay in creating the new supervisor role, and what he characterized as inconsistent explanations from the University. He also asserted that he should have been placed into the new supervisory role rather than terminated.
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on both claims. With respect to his claim that the University interfered with his FMLA, the Court explained that although employees are generally entitled to reinstatement after leave, that right does not apply if the employer can show the employee would have lost the position regardless of the leave. The University met this burden through sworn declarations from decisionmakers explaining that the restructuring was planned before Hansen’s leave and implemented in May for efficiency reasons at the end of the academic year.
The Court emphasized that Hansen failed to present evidence to meaningfully dispute this explanation. His argument that the University’s evidence was “self-serving” was insufficient, as sworn declarations based on personal knowledge are valid evidence at the summary judgment stage. The Court also noted that Hansen chose not to take depositions or submit competing evidence that could have created a factual dispute.
The Court likewise rejected Hansen’s retaliation claim. It explained that such claims require evidence that the protected activity caused the adverse action. Hansen relied primarily on the timing of his termination, but the Court held that temporal proximity alone, particularly over a period of several months, is rarely sufficient to establish causation. The Court also rejected Hansen’s argument that he should have been placed in the new supervisory role, noting that the FMLA does not entitle an employee to a different or non-equivalent position.
Because Hansen failed to show that his leave played any role in the decision to eliminate his position, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the university on all claims.
Hansen v. Lutheran Univ. Ass’n (N.D.Ind. Mar. 19, 2026) 2026 WL 775397.
Note: While employees generally have the right to reinstatement after FMLA leave, that right is not absolute. Employers may lawfully terminate or eliminate a position during leave if the decision is unrelated to the employee’s use of FMLA. Schools should be aware, however, that making those types of decisions often require a strong written record and still carry risk of a potential claim.