The Federal Sector FMLA Blog

FMLA Verdict Could Cost Chase Manhattan Over $8 Million

On March 17, 2008, a federal jury recently awarded a Chase Manhattan regional manager more than $2.2 million for violations of the FMLA.  The complaint alleged, and the jury found, that the employee was shown the door after making several requests for FMLA leave due to a serious health condition the company was aware of.  Chase disputed the claim, alleging that the manager voluntarily resigned. 

The case took several years to wind its way through the courts.  With prejudgment interest, double (liquidated) damages for a willful violation, front pay, and attorneys fees, Chase could easily be looking at a total payout of more than $8 million dollars.

For more information on the case, see the attached link.  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1207133081980&rss=newswire 

Comment:  The large damage award in this case is somewhat unusual and largely attributable to the employee's $600,000 annual salary.  More typically an employer should anticipate damages in the high six or low seven figures for an employee's FMLA claim that goes all the way through a jury trial.  Class action FMLA claims could multiply that amount considerably.

High damage awards have contributed to an increase in FMLA litigation.  Other factors contributing to the increase in FMLA litigation include greater employee awareness of FMLA rights, the increased use of FMLA leave, the relative ease of proving a "serious health condition" compared to a "disability," and a greater awareness of the FMLA as a means of securing big judgments by the professional employment law bar.

To avoid being on the receiving end of a multi-million dollar adverse jury verdict, employers would be well advised to periodically audit their personnel policies to ensure that they comply with the FMLA.  Employers also need to provide up-to-date FMLA training to those involved with decisions involving FMLA leave, including discipline.  Courts and the DOL are always interpreting the FMLA in ways that are not obvious. Simply knowing the regulations is not enough to avoid a costly violation of the FMLA; employers must stay current with FMLA developments.

Civil service employees covered by Title II of the FMLA do not have the right to sue for money damages for violation of their FMLA rights.  Civil service employees are limited to whatever damages are available in the grievance process.  Title II of the FMLA also does not provide for double damages for a willful violation or attorney fees.   

       

FMLA Provides for Jury Trial for Money Damages

The FMLA provides for the right to a trial by jury where the claim involves money damages.  Petty v. Carolina Biological Supply, No. 1:05cv00954, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63615 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2006). 

Comment:  The decision is correct for Title I cases arising in the private sector.  The courts are split on whether a jury trial is available for Title I cases in the federal sector.  Some courts have accepted arguments that federal agencies have not waived sovereign immunity to permit jury trials for FMLA claims.  It is likely that the same split of authority will develop for civil suits pursuant to the CAA and PEOAA. Title II does not allow aggrieved employees to sue the agency employer for FMLA violations.

FMLA Does Not Permit Recovery for Physical Injuries Resulting from Placement in a Non-Equivalent Job

In Bordeau v. Saginaw Control & Engineering, Inc., No. 04-10312-BC, 2006 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 59774 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 24, 2006), the issue presented was whether an employee may recover under the FMLA damages for physical injuries sustained when the employee returned to work following an approved medical leave but was placed in a job that required manual labor and therefore was not comparable to the job he left.  Mr. Bordeau was employed as a purchasing manager when he took approved FMLA leave to care for his elderly mother.  On his return Mr. Bordeau was given a manual labor job on the plant floor and not his previous purchasing manager job.  While performing his labor job Mr. Bordeau sustained a disabling back injury and has not been able to return two work.  Mr. Bordeau’s employment was terminated shortly after sustaining the injury.   Mr. Bordeau sued alleging violation of the FMLA. Specifically, he sought damages for physical injuries he suffered as a result of the employer’s failure to return him to his same or an equivalent position.  The employer moved for summary judgment alleging that the FMLA does not permit recovery of the damages sought by Mr. Bordeau.  The court agreed with the employer, but with a twist.

The remedy section of the FMLA states that an employer who violates the Act must pay the employee “damages equal to … any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or … any actual monetary losses sustained by the employee as a direct result of the violation.”  The employer argued that Mr. Bordeau’s inability to work and earn money because of his back injury does not amount to wage loss or actual monetary loss “by reason of” or “as a direct result of” Saginaw Control’s FMLA violation.  The court agreed.  Relying on precedent in other courts, the court in Bordeau determined that the controlling language of the FMLA limits damages to actual, direct losses that ensue because of interference with or denial of rights under the Act.  To be compensable, actual direct losses must arise out of a quid pro quo relationship between the employer and an employee.  Here, the court found that Mr. Bordeau’s inability to work because of injury to his back was not a direct result of the employer’s FMLA violation. At most, the court found that disabling back injury was a consequences of the employer’ FMLA violation, but consequential damages were not available under the FMLA.  The court went on, however to find that the FMLA permits equitable relief, including front pay where, as here, reinstatement is not appropriate.     

   

Comment:  Monetary damages for violation of the FMLA are available under Title I, the CAA, and the PEOAA.  Title II of the FMLA does not specifically provide monetary relief for FMLA violations.  Where monetary damages are available, the FMLA does not permit recovery for all damages suffered as a consequence of the violation.  Damages that do not arise directly out of the employer-employee relationship are generally not available.  Note, however, that the availability of front pay as an equitable remedy may go a considerable way in compensating an employee for loss of future income due to injuries suffered as a result of an employer’s FMLA violation.  The remedies available to employees for violation of the FMLA are addressed in Chapter 15 of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation (Dewey Publications, Inc. 2003 & 2005 Supplement). 

Punitive Damages Not Available for Violation of the FMLA

The FMLA does not provide for the recovery of punitive damages.  Lodes v. U. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr., No. 3-04-CV-1160-BD, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15738 (N.D.Tex. April 4, 2006).  Comment: The decision interprets Title I of the FMLA.  It would also have application to the FMLA provisions of the CAA and PEOAA.  It does not apply to Title II of the FMLA because civil sefrvants do not have the right to file a civil suit againt the federal government for violation of the FMLA.