Her first bad review in 26 years came eight days after she asked for family leave
S&P Global allegedly fired a 26-year employee on her first day back from family leave.
The worker had spent more than two decades at the financial data giant, starting as a director in learning resources in July 2000 and later moving into a global learning partner role in November 2013, according to a federal complaint filed on November 12, 2026 in the Southern District of New York.
Her track record, the complaint alleges, was spotless. Merit-based bonuses. Merit-based salary increases. Performance reviews that consistently met or exceeded expectations.
As recently as July 2025, the filing states, her direct supervisor gave her a "big thank you" for everything she had done over the years, called her knowledge of how things work "a real strength for the team," and described her as "dependable, thoughtful, and collaborative."
Then her parents' health fell apart.
According to the complaint, the worker's father was admitted to hospital four separate times in February 2026 alone. Her mother's health had also deteriorated to the point where she could no longer care for herself. The worker moved in with her mother and, on February 17, 2026, told her direct supervisor she needed to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Eight days later, the complaint alleges, the supervisor handed her a "Below Expected Performance" rating - her first in 26 years on the job.
The filing states it took until March 2, 2026 - almost two weeks after the request - for anyone in S&P Global's HR department to contact her about the leave. She started FMLA leave on March 23, 2026, and later extended it after her father passed away.
On August 5, 2026, the worker told her supervisor she was ready to come back but needed a flexible schedule to keep caring for her mother, according to the complaint.
Five days later, S&P Global terminated her employment without notice or cause, the filing alleges. It was the day she returned from leave.
The complaint leans heavily on the timing. A worker with an "excellent twenty-six-year performance record" receives her first negative review days after disclosing caregiving responsibilities, then loses her job the moment she walks back in the door. The filing calls the connection "obvious."
The lawsuit brings two claims. The first alleges S&P Global retaliated against the worker for taking FMLA leave. The second alleges the company discriminated against her because of her caregiving responsibilities, in violation of New York City's human rights law, which protects workers from being penalized for caring for family members.
The worker is seeking lost wages, lost benefits, and either reinstatement to her role or compensation in lieu. She has demanded a jury trial.
For HR teams, the alleged fact pattern reads like a textbook example of what employment lawyers look for in a retaliation case: a negative review timed to a leave request, then a termination timed to the return date.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings on the merits.
