Sixth Circuit Affirms Verdict for Successful FMLA Plaintiff

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict for a successful FMLA plaintiff in the amount of $31,000 for compensatory damages as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount, court costs, pre and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $77,233 (i.e., more than the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery).  Clements v. Prudential Protective Services LLC, No. 15-1603 (6^th Cir. 8-3-16).  As earlier reported here, the plaintiff former security guard had been laid off following her 2009 maternity leave and ultimately filed suit under the FMLA.  The Court rejected the employer’s arguments about unfair rulings at trial.  It also refused to reduce the attorneys’ fees by more than the 10% already reduced by the trial court to address the plaintiff’s unsuccessful claims.   Finally, it also rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s 30% contingency fee agreement prevented the attorneys from recovering fees as a prevailing party.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.FM

Sixth Circuit Limits Employer’s Challenge to Reliability of FMLA Medical Certification

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict and liquidated damages in favor of an employee who alleged that her employer improperly denied her FMLA leave and then fired her in retaliation for taking FMLA leave.  Hyldahl v. Michigan Bell, No. 09-2087 (6^th Cir. 10/31/12).  The Court rejected the employer’s argument that the employee’s supplemental medical certification was invalid or at least unreliable because it was unsupported by a contemporaneous medical or psychological examination and was based instead on the employee’s subjective description of how she was feeling.    

According to the Court's opinion, the employee had been under medical care by the particular healthcare providers for chronic depression and PTSD for seven years at the time they certified that she was unable to work on the day in question.  The court found these medical providers were familiar enough with her serious health condition and course of treatment to certify her inability to work without a contemporaneous medical examination.   

The Court also found that liquidated damages were appropriate even though the employer acted in good faith because it did not have a reasonable basis to believe the opinion of its retained physician -- who had never examined the employee  -- over the medical certifications of the employee’s treating physician.  “Liquidated damages are presumptively awarded against an employer who violates the FMLA, and it is the employer’s burden to demonstrate that its decision to deny leave was both made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds.”  The trial court also had discretion to award such damages.
 
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.