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 are available for violation of the FMLA. The FMLA does, however, permit recovery for all damages suffered as a consequence of a 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 long 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).
