He scored fives for years - then took paternity leave and got a one
A Zscaler worker alleges his paternity leave cost him his job - and then stopped him from getting it back.
The former product manager filed a federal lawsuit on October 12, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, claiming the cybersecurity company retaliated against him for taking paternity leave, discriminated against him based on his sex, and interfered with his leave rights. He is seeking compensatory, punitive, and liquidated damages, and has demanded a jury trial.
According to the complaint, the worker joined Zscaler - a Nasdaq-listed cloud security firm headquartered in San Jose, California - in February 2023 as a principal sales engineer. By January 2025, he had moved into a principal product manager role. His performance reviews were consistent throughout: "fours and fives" out of five, the filing states.
On January 7, 2025, he logged his paternity leave request into Zscaler's leave-of-absence system, giving roughly three months' notice. He started leave on April 10, 2025.
Then came the conference.
In early June 2025, while the worker was still on leave, his direct manager allegedly asked him to alter his leave and travel to Europe for a conference in her place. The filing alleges a vice president had raised concerns about the manager's ability to travel internationally as a non-US citizen. So the worker went.
But when he arrived in Europe, the complaint states, the manager had decided to attend anyway - "rendering the entire exercise pointless and a waste of leave time/scheduling."
At the same conference, the filing alleges, a senior director warned the worker that his direct manager "has a pattern of reporting male co-workers to HR."
Things went south from there.
When the worker returned from leave and the conference, he says he faced immediate hostility and avoidance from his manager. On June 24, 2025, according to the complaint, he flagged the behavior to an HR representative.
That HR representative later left the company. When the worker met with her replacement in early July 2025, the complaint alleges, the new HR representative told him the manager had complained that he "had failed to disclose his upcoming paternity leave prior to starting his role."
Then came the performance review.
On August 1, 2025, the complaint states, the worker was handed a performance rating of "1" out of 5 - which the filing describes as "retaliatory" - after years of fours and fives. Between August and October 2025, the filing alleges, the manager sent weekly performance-related emails that were "increasingly hostile and retaliatory."
In late October 2025, the worker resigned. By November 7, 2025, according to the complaint, he had been constructively discharged - effectively forced out by conditions that left him no reasonable choice but to leave.
That could have been the end of it.
Months later, on March 24, 2026, the worker interviewed for a new specialist role at Zscaler. He received a verbal offer from the hiring manager, and a company recruiter confirmed he was eligible for rehire, the complaint states.
Six days later, Zscaler pulled the offer. The worker alleges the company told him he had been marked "not eligible for rehire" following his 2025 departure.
The complaint brings three claims: retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), for the alleged adverse actions after the worker took leave; FMLA interference, for allegedly forcing him to alter his leave for a conference; and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for the alleged treatment tied to his gender. The worker had already filed a discrimination charge with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before bringing the lawsuit.
For HR teams, the case is a textbook example of how paternity leave administration, performance review timing, and rehire-eligibility flags can line up to create serious legal exposure - especially when the paper trail shows a sharp ratings downgrade right after protected leave.
These are allegations contained in a civil complaint filed on October 12, 2026, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
