“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case
A fired city employee filed suit, claiming that she was improperly fired for raising a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
What happened in this case?
The city of Clarksburg, West Virginia fired Dominique Spatafore some three months after returning from medical leave. The city claimed it was because she had sent workplace complaints to the mayor’s wife and city council instead of to her supervisor. She filed suit, claiming that she was improperly retaliated against for taking leave, which is illegal under the FMLA. The district court rejected her case, maintaining that there was no evidence that her firing was pretextual and in violation of the FMLA.
Spatafore appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the decision against her in Spatafore v City of Clarksburg in January 2026. The majority included Bush/Clinton judge Roger Gregory and Trump judge Julius Richardson, while Obama appointee Pamela Harris dissented.
How did Trump judge Richardson rule?
Judge Richardson joined an opinion by Judge Gregory that rejected the appeal. They thought that the record clearly showed there was no evidence of retaliation and that the firing was proper.
What did Judge Harris say in dissent?
Judge Harris explained that in her view of the record, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the firing was pretextual and an improper retaliation under the FMLA. She pointed to evidence in the record that the city had failed to follow its “normal sequence” of progressive discipline for conduct like Spatafore complaining to the mayor’s wife about the city’s actions.
Why is the result harmful?
Trump judge Richarson’s deciding vote obviously frustrated Spatafore’s effort to get justice for the city’s alleged retaliation against her under the FMLA and sets a bad precedent on other FMLA claims in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.