PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JAMES D. DOTSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 07-1920

PFIZER, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant. 

JAMES D. DOTSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 07-1979

PFIZER, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(5:04-cv-00722-BR)

Argued: September 23, 2008

Decided: March 4, 2009

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges,

and James C. CACHERIS, Senior United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by

designation.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and

remanded by published opinion. Senior Judge Cacheris wrote

the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Agee joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Thomas A. Farr, OGLETREE, DEAKINS,

NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. William Parker Barrett,

WILLIAMS MULLEN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: James H. Stewart,

III, Phillip J. Strach, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Joshua M. Krasner, Jonathan R.

Bumgarner, Brian C. Vick, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

OPINION

CACHERIS, Senior District Judge:

This case reaches the Court after a full trial on the merits

in the Eastern District of North Carolina. James Dotson

("Dotson") brought suit against his employer, Pfizer, Inc.

("Pfizer"), for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act

of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (the "FMLA"). The jury

awarded Dotson $1,876.00 on his FMLA interference claim

and $331,429.25 on his retaliation claim. The district court

awarded Dotson $333,305.25 in statutory liquidated damages,

$375,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, and $14,264.88 in costs. Each

party appealed different rulings of the district court. Finding

error with the district court’s decision to deny pre-judgment

interest, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and

remand. 

2 DOTSON v. PFIZER
I.

Pfizer terminated Dotson shortly after he and his wife

returned from Russia with their newly-adopted child. Prior to

his termination, Dotson had worked at Pfizer for approximately fifteen years. He began his career there in 1988 at an

entry-level sales position. In 1991 he was promoted to District

Manager; seven years later he became a Regional Manager

responsible for more than 100 sales representatives. 

In 2002, Dotson took on a new position as an Institutional

Healthcare Account Manager in Pfizer’s National Healthcare

Organizations ("NHO") division. There, he dealt with managed care organizations, insurance companies, and large

employers rather than healthcare providers. The parties dispute the facts related to Dotson’s 2002 reassignment. Pfizer

characterizes the new job as a demotion for unsatisfactory

performance. Dotson notes that he did not take a pay cut and

that he received no information indicating performance deficiencies. Approximately one year later, Dotson was reassigned again, this time as a Regional Account Manager in the

same institutional healthcare division. In his new position,

Dotson’s immediate supervisor was Chris Kennedy

("Kennedy"), who reported to Regional Manager Patrick

McElerney ("McElerney"). 

As part of his training as a sales representative, Dotson was

instructed in the proper handling of sample packs of Pfizer

products, called "starters." Sales representatives provide starters to doctors, who give them to their patients in order to get

a patient "started" on a drug for which the doctor will then

write prescriptions. The Food and Drug Administration regulates the use of starters. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act,

21 U.S.C. § 353 et seq. (the "PDMA"), covers their distribution. The PDMA requires Pfizer to track and account for any

starters given to physicians. Pfizer uses electronic tracking

and "starter activity forms" to fulfill its responsibilities under

the statute. 

DOTSON v. PFIZER 3
The PDMA also requires pharmaceutical companies to

report any improper diversions of starters or intentional falsifications of starter forms. Violations can result in sanctions

ranging from fines and the loss of drug distribution rights to

imprisonment for some criminal violations of the statute.

Under its starter policies, Pfizer can discharge employees for

violations; however, at the time Dotson was fired, the company did not provide specific details of its standards for discharge. The NHO division was not responsible for handling

starters and did not receive starter activity forms or shipments

of starters. 

In early 2003, Dotson and his family began working with

an adoption agency to adopt a child from Russia. Dotson called a Pfizer third-party benefits contractor to inquire about

adoption benefits provided by the company. Later that year,

Dotson and his wife learned that they could adopt a baby girl

but would have to make at least two trips to Russia to complete the adoption. Dotson spoke with a Pfizer human

resources ("HR") representative about taking leave during the

adoption process. Testimony differed as to what the HR representative, Amy Burnell ("Burnell"), told Dotson about his

intention to use accrued vacation time and the applicability of

FMLA benefits. Burnell referred Dotson to another HR officer whom Dotson never contacted. He used accrued vacation

time to take his first trip to Russia. Both parties agree that,

around this time, Dotson’s relationship with his immediate

supervisor, Kennedy, was deteriorating. 

Around August 2003, Dotson obtained starters from a

Pfizer sales representative that he intended to give to the

Director of Medicine for the North Carolina Highway Patrol.

Pfizer alleges that Dotson’s request for and subsequent handling of the starter violated company protocol. Later, after

finding out that he was eligible to adopt and learning from the

agency that it was customary to bring gifts for the orphanage,

Dotson decided to obtain a case of starters of the antibiotic

Zithromax to take to the orphanage in Russia. In connection

4 DOTSON v. PFIZER
with this decision, the parties dispute Dotson’s intent, his

familiarity with starter protocol, and whether he knew that

such an endeavor violated company policy. Dotson delivered

the Zithromax to the orphanage on his first trip to Russia. 

During a performance review shortly after that first trip,

Dotson’s two immediate supervisors informed him that they

were unhappy with his job performance and expressed concern about his use of the Zithromax. Dotson later contacted

his regional HR director, Ann Hodges ("Hodges"), to discuss

the negative performance review. Hodges also said she was

concerned about Dotson’s handling of starters. After speaking

with Hodges, Dotson left with his wife for a second trip to

Russia. Pfizer then began an evaluation of Dotson’s actions.

As part of that evaluation, McElerney related a summary of

Dotson’s actions to Steve Harper, a Pfizer Vice President,

who believed that the use of the Zithromax could be viewed

as a prohibited quid pro quo with the Russian orphanage. Harper determined that Dotson’s conduct warranted discharge,

and an executive group within Pfizer management concurred.

Pfizer terminated Dotson on November 11, 2003 — less than

three weeks after Dotson and his wife returned from Russia

with their adopted child. Dotson claims that the starter issue

was used as a pretext to fire him and that the "policy" against

his use of the starters was unknown to anyone outside the

group that made the decision to terminate him. Pfizer did not

report Dotson’s alleged PDMA violation until 2005. 

Dotson filed suit in September 2004. In October 2005,

Pfizer amended its Answer to assert an after-acquired evidence defense against Dotson. The new defense related to

Dotson’s delivery of starters to the North Carolina Highway

Patrol and to his purported misleading of a Pfizer starter control official, which Pfizer claims led to its late reporting of the

PDMA violation. A jury trial began in May 2006 and lasted

eight days. The jury found that Pfizer interfered with Dotson’s

rights to FMLA leave and that it discharged Dotson in retaliation for his exercise of those rights. It awarded him $1,876 on

DOTSON v. PFIZER 5
his claim of interference and $331,429.25 on his retaliation

claim. Pfizer filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

("JMOL") and an alternative Motion for a New Trial in June

2006. After the trial, Dotson filed a Proposed Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law Regarding Front Pay and a Motion

for Liquidated Damages, Attorneys’ Fees, and Costs. The

Court denied Pfizer’s JMOL motion and awarded Dotson

$375,000 in liquidated damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and

costs. It denied Dotson’s motion for front pay and prejudgment interest. On appeal, Pfizer challenges the court’s

denial of its JMOL motion, the award of liquidated damages,

and the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded. Dotson appeals

the court’s denial of pre-judgment interest and front pay, and

contends that the award of attorneys’ fees was inadequate. 

II.

Pfizer argues that the district court erred by denying its

post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. We review

the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de

novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prevailing party. Rodriguez v. Smithfield Packing Co., 338

F.3d 348, 354 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Austin v. Paramount

Parks, Inc., 193 F.3d 715, 727 (4th Cir. 1999)). A trial court

may grant judgment as a matter of law when it "finds that a

reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary

basis to find for" the non-moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P.

50(a)(1); see Brown v. CSX Transp., Inc., 18 F.3d 245, 248

(4th Cir. 1994). A court, however, may not disturb the verdict

where there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to

find in the non-movant’s favor. Lack v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

240 F.3d 255, 259 (4th Cir. 2001). "A trial court may not

appropriately enter [JMOL] unless it concludes, after consideration of the record as a whole in the light most favorable to

the non-movant, that the evidence presented supports only

one reasonable verdict, in favor of the moving party." Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 458 (4th Cir. 1989)

(citation omitted). 

6 DOTSON v. PFIZER
A.

Pfizer raises three grounds on which it contends the district

court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter

of law on Dotson’s FMLA retaliation claim. First, it argues

that the FMLA does not provide for the type of intermittent

adoption-related leave that he took. Second, Pfizer claims that

Dotson did not request FMLA leave, and so a rational jury

could not hold it liable for retaliating against him for exercising his FMLA rights. Third, Pfizer argues that Dotson could

not show retaliatory animus by the persons who decided to

fire him and that there was no evidence that the firing was

pretextual.

1. Intermittent Leave Under the FMLA

The FMLA allows eligible employees 12 weeks of leave

during any 12-month period "[b]ecause of the placement of a

son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster

care." 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(B).1 An employee cannot take

such leave intermittently "unless the employee and the

employer . . . agree otherwise." Id. at § 2612(b)(1). 

The parties do not dispute that Dotson took intermittent

pre-adoption leave. Pfizer, though, suggests that Dotson’s preadoption absences were taken intermittently without Pfizer’s

consent and thus fall outside the FMLA. Testimony showed,

however, that Dotson kept the company informed of his need

for adoption-related leave. In its brief, Pfizer acknowledged

that other than for one work-related dinner, it permitted Dotson to take all of the leave that he requested. Pfizer claims

that even though it allowed Dotson to take accrued leave

intermittently, it could not have approved intermittent FMLA

leave because he never specifically requested the use of intermittent FMLA leave. 

1The parties stipulated that Dotson was an "eligible employee" under

the FMLA. 

DOTSON v. PFIZER 7
Pfizer’s argument fails because the FMLA does not require

Dotson to specifically invoke its protections in order to benefit from it. Regulations promulgated by the Department of

Labor "repeatedly emphasize that it is the employer’s responsibility to determine the applicability of the FMLA and to

consider requested leave as FMLA leave." Price v. City of

Fort Wayne, 117 F.3d 1022, 1026 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing 29

C.F.R. § 825.303(b)). Read in context, subsection (b)(1) to

§ 2612 does not create an additional hurdle for employees

asking for adoption-related leave beyond the requirement that

they make a request or requests for leave that is intermittent.

Instead, the statutory language makes it clear that employers

may, at their option, require that employees take FMLA leave

for certain reasons (birth, adoption or foster care placement

under § 2612(a)(1)(A)-(B)) in one block of up to twelve

weeks rather than intermittently. The requirement that

employer and employee must "agree" on intermittent leave

means that employers can refuse to allow this type of leave

in birth, adoption and foster care placement cases. By contrast, employees have an unfettered right to take FMLA leave

because of a serious health condition intermittently when

"medically necessary," with or without employer consent.2 29

U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C)-(D). When the provisions are read

side by side in this manner, the requirement that employer and

employee must "agree" on intermittent leave does not clash

with the generally-accepted position that no "magic words"

are necessary to invoke the protections of the FMLA. See Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398, 402 (3d

Cir. 2007); see also Rhoads v. F.D.I.C., 257 F.3d 373, 382-83

(4th Cir. 2001). Pfizer could not point to any evidence showing that it refused to allow Dotson to take adoption-related

leave intermittently. 

2Section 2612(b)(1) also states that, subject to several limitations, an

employee has the right to intermittent leave under § 2612(a)(1)(E), which

allows for time off for certain exigencies related to the active duty military

service of a family member. 

8 DOTSON v. PFIZER
Courts that have allowed employers a defense based on the

statute’s requirement that the employer and employee "agree"

on intermittent leave have done so when the employer

expressly refused to agree to intermittent leave. See Maynard

v. Town of Monterey, Tenn., 75 Fed. Appx. 491, 493 (6th Cir.

2003); Beyst v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 2433201 at

*7-8 (E.D. Mich., June 11, 2008) (granting an employer’s

motion for summary judgment on an "intermittent" FMLA

claim where the employer expressly forbade intermittent

leave in its Employee Handbook).3

Here, evidence showed that Pfizer agreed that Dotson could

take his adoption-related leave intermittently. Dotson kept his

supervisors informed about his need for adoption-related

absences, which included two separate trips to Russia. No one

at Pfizer suggested he could not take either trip. Dotson also

contacted Pfizer’s employee benefits contractor with questions related to his planned adoption. During the trial, he

offered evidence that a Pfizer HR official misinformed him

about available FMLA benefits, after which he did not seek

to designate any of his time off as FMLA-protected. The jury,

then, heard evidence from which it could reasonably infer that

Pfizer either granted Dotson’s requests for intermittent

adoption-related leave or failed to properly inquire concerning

the designation of leave. If Dotson was improperly dissuaded

from pursuing his FMLA options, he could not have come to

an agreement on a more formal intermittent leave schedule.4

3The plaintiff in Beyst did request, and was allowed, to take time off for

incidents related to his newborn child. 2008 WL 2433201 at *7. The court

refused to treat the employer’s acquiescence to these intermittent leave

requests as an agreement under § 2612(b)(1). Id. While such a finding may

be understandable given the employer’s explicit policy forbidding intermittent leave, we decline to accept language in the case suggesting that the

plaintiff generally bears the burden of expressly invoking the FMLA. 

4Because we find that Dotson has pointed to sufficient evidence showing that Pfizer either agreed to his intermittent adoption-related leave

requests or misled him as to his eligibility for the FMLA, thus negating

the possibility that he could come to a more formal agreement with Pfizer

as to an intermittent leave schedule, we decline to address the district

court’s alternative rationale, based on the FMLA regulations contained at

29 C.F.R. §§ 825.203(b) and 825.112(d), for upholding the jury’s finding.

DOTSON v. PFIZER 9
In either case, Pfizer cannot now claim that it did not "agree"

to allow Dotson to take the intermittent pre-adoption leave he

requested and took. 

2. Request for FMLA Leave

Pfizer submits that the district court should have granted

judgment in its favor because no evidence suggested that Dotson applied for FMLA leave or exercised his FMLA rights.

The company argues that it could not have intended to retaliate against Dotson for using his FMLA rights when he did not

actually exercise those rights. 

In addition to providing a substantive (or "prescriptive")

right to unpaid leave in certain situations, the FMLA also provides proscriptive rights "that protect employees from discrimination or retaliation for exercising their substantive

rights under the FMLA." Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino

Co., 446 F.3d 541, 546 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Hodgens v.

General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 159-60 (4th Cir.

1998)). Section 2615 of the FMLA makes it "unlawful for any

employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or

the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this subchapter." 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). While the FMLA does not specifically forbid discharging an employee in retaliation for his

use of FMLA leave, 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) states that

employers are "prohibited from discriminating against

employees or prospective employees who have used FMLA

leave" and that "employers cannot use the taking of FMLA

leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions." Courts have recognized that the FMLA provides a cause of action for

retaliation. Blankenship v. Buchanan Gen. Hosp., 140 F.

Supp. 2d 668, 671-72 (W.D. Va. 2001). 

Relying principally on a case from the Eleventh Circuit,

Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd., 239 F.3d 1199 (11th

Cir. 2001), Pfizer argues that for Dotson to establish unlawful

10 DOTSON v. PFIZER
retaliation under the FMLA, he must show that Pfizer had

notice that he was specifically invoking an FMLA right. Simply asserting that an employer had notice of an employee’s

need for leave for an FMLA-related reason, Pfizer suggests,

cannot open the employer to FMLA retaliation liability. 

Case law and federal regulations make it clear, however,

that employees do not need to invoke the FMLA in order to

benefit from its protections. The regulations do not require the

employee to "expressly assert rights under the FMLA or even

mention the FMLA"; instead, the employee "may only state

that leave is needed for an expected birth or adoption, for

example." 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c). After the employee makes

such a statement, the responsibility falls on the employer to

inquire further about whether the employee is seeking FMLA

leave. Id. "In providing notice, the employee need not use any

magic words." Sarnowski, 510 F.3d at 402. 

There is no question that Dotson gave Pfizer adequate

notice of his need for leave during the adoption process. After

he provided this information, the burden shifted to Pfizer to

determine whether he was requesting FMLA leave. Pfizer has

not shown that it made any inquiry into whether his adoptionrelated leave should have been classified as protected under

the FMLA. Pfizer’s legal argument would allow it to use its

own failure to determine whether leave should be designated

as FMLA-protected to block liability for retaliation. We

decline to allow an employer to take advantage of its own

lapse in such a way. 

Language in Strickland does appear to countenance the

view that, for a retaliation claim to proceed, an employer must

be on notice that an employee specifically invoked the protection of the FMLA. See 510 F.3d at 1207. In Strickland, the

employee had an argument with his supervisor and then left

work. The employee claimed that he told his supervisor and

another individual responsible for recording work absences

that he was leaving because he was having trouble with his

DOTSON v. PFIZER 11
diabetes. Id. at 1202-03. On these facts, the court found that

the employer did not have notice that the employee was taking FMLA-protected leave; it did, however, allow the

employee to press a FMLA interference claim. Thus, the Strickland court appeared to embrace a higher burden for making

a retaliation claim under the statute. In our view, any such elevated evidentiary burden contrasts with the applicable FMLA

notice regulations, which do not differentiate between the

notice required to make interference claims and other claims

under the FMLA. To the extent that Strickland stands for a

higher retaliation burden, we decline to follow it.

In contrast to the last-minute, confusing statements made

by the employee in Strickland, however, Dotson gave clear

and advance notice that he was pursuing adoption, an FMLAqualifying event. His testimony could lead a reasonable jury

to find that Pfizer was on notice that he was inquiring about

his FMLA options and that Pfizer did not fulfill its duty to

inquire about whether his leave should be classified as

FMLA-protected. Dotson also proffered evidence showing

that he asked about the FMLA and received incorrect or misleading advice from a Pfizer HR official that led him to

believe the law could not benefit him. Thus, even if we

accepted the higher standard for a retaliation claim implied in

Strickland, we would still find that Dotson presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to believe that he was

improperly prevented from invoking his FMLA rights and

fired in retaliation for actions that should have been protected

under the statute. Pfizer cannot use its own oversight to

escape liability for retaliation by claiming it had no warning

that the statute protected Dotson. 

3. Retaliatory Animus and Pretext

In order to prevail on a FMLA retaliation claim, Dotson

must have shown evidence linking the adverse employment

action taken against him to a "protected activity," in this case

his adoption-related leave. See Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC

12 DOTSON v. PFIZER
Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541, 551 (4th Cir. 2006) (analyzing

FMLA retaliation claim under Title VII framework). When

we review a finding of retaliation after a full trial on the merits, "our sole focus is ‘discrimination vel non’ — that is,

whether in light of the applicable standard of review the jury’s

finding of unlawful retaliation is supportable." Cline v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting

Jiminez v. Mary Washington Coll., 57 F.3d 369, 377 (4th Cir.

1995)). 

Pfizer’s position at trial was that it fired Dotson because his

delivery of a starter to an orphanage in Russia created the

impression of a quid pro quo, which could have had serious

legal repercussions for Pfizer. This non-discriminatory explanation, if believed by the jury, would have rebutted Dotson’s

prima facie case of retaliatory firing.5 Following the burdenshifting framework of McDonnell Douglas, which allows a

finding of discrimination when the supposedly nondiscriminatory reason for termination is shown to be pretextual, Dotson then put on evidence to show that Pfizer’s reasons for firing him were a mere pretext for unlawful

discrimination. See Yashenko, 446 F.3d at 551 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800-06 (1973)).

Pfizer now argues that Dotson failed to prove retaliation at

trial for two reasons: first, he did not show that any member

of the group of Pfizer executives that made the decision to fire

him bore any retaliatory animus toward him for his adoptionrelated leave; second, Dotson did not show that the reason

Pfizer gave for firing him was pretextual. We believe, to the

contrary, that under the standard of review for a JMOL decision, Dotson put on sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find

both retaliatory animus and pretext. Because the evidence in

5

In deciding Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment, the district court

found that Dotson made out a prima facie case of retaliation based on the

timing of his firing under Williams v. Cerberonics, 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th

Cir. 1989). This finding was not challenged on appeal. 

DOTSON v. PFIZER 13
the record before us shows that a jury could rationally find

that Pfizer’s stated reason for firing Dotson was pretextual,

we decline to address Pfizer’s first argument in any detail.6

Dotson put on sufficient evidence of weaknesses and inconsistencies in Pfizer’s account of its decision to fire him for a

jury to find pretext. See Richmond v. ONEOK, Inc., 120 F.3d

205, 209 (10th Cir. 1997); Blankenship v. Buchanan Gen.

Hosp., 140 F. Supp. 2d 668, 674 (W.D. Va. 2001). First,

Pfizer’s starter policies were not so clearly drawn that Dotson’s handling of starters was obviously wrongful. Dotson put

on evidence showing that some Pfizer personnel were

unaware that NHO division employees could not handle starters. Most importantly, none of the Pfizer employees who

knew in advance about Dotson’s plan to donate the Zithromax

starters — including Kennedy, his direct supervisor, and

McElerney, a member of the executive group that fired Dotson — took any action to stop him from donating the Zithromax. Neither Kennedy nor McElerney was disciplined for

failing to stop him. A jury could rationally conclude that if

such a donation constituted a violation serious enough to

merit permanent dismissal, Pfizer higher-ups would have

known to stop Dotson from going forward with it or, alternatively, would have suffered some consequence for their inaction. 

The evidence also showed that the other two persons

directly involved in obtaining starters for Dotson were not

disciplined. Pfizer argues that the level of misconduct by

these two persons and Dotson’s two supervisors on one hand,

and Dotson on the other, were quite different and should not

be weighted equally under Moore v. City of Charlotte, 754

F.2d 1100, 1107 (4th Cir. 1985). Even if the conduct was not

6

It is worth noting, however, that on cross-examination, McElerney —

a member of the executive group that made the decision to fire Dotson —

expressed his frustration at Dotson for missing a deadline due to an

adoption-related trip to Russia. 

14 DOTSON v. PFIZER
precisely analogous, of the five persons involved directly or

tangentially in mishandling starters, one was fired and the

other four were not disciplined at all. That fact, taken in combination with other Pfizer employees’ confusion over the

company’s starter policies and the timing of Dotson’s firing,

could lead a reasonable jury to find that Dotson’s firing under

these circumstances was pretextual.

B.

Pfizer suggests that the district court should have granted

its motion for JMOL on Dotson’s claim for FMLA interference because Dotson did not show that he incurred actual

damages as a result of any interference with his rights under

the FMLA. Dotson, however, put on sufficient evidence for

a jury to find that he suffered a cognizable injury because of

Pfizer’s interference. 

Dotson incurred actual damages when he was asked to

work while traveling to Russia on leave that should have been

FMLA-protected — work for which Pfizer did not give him

a full day’s credit. Had Pfizer treated the day Dotson spent

working as a work day, rather than as paid vacation, Dotson

would have been paid for an additional day of accrued vacation when he was terminated. A day’s paid vacation is not valueless; it is a tangible employment benefit providing full pay

for a day when no work is performed. As such, it should be

considered a form of compensation subject to valuation. The

section outlining damages for FMLA interferences explains

that employers are liable for damages in "the amount of any

wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation

denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation."

29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(i)(I). In our opinion, the "amount"

of "employment benefits" or "other compensation" lost here

is equal to the amount Dotson would have been paid on a day

of paid vacation. While Dotson has raised a number of arguments that would support a finding of damages, the loss of

DOTSON v. PFIZER 15
paid vacation is sufficient to overcome any damages-based

hurdle to an FMLA interference claim.

C.

During the trial, Pfizer introduced evidence, discovered

after the commencement of litigation, of what it claimed were

Dotson’s misrepresentations to Pfizer personnel regarding the

doctor’s signatures he obtained on the forms used to track

starter distribution. During the performance review held in

October 2003, Dotson’s two immediate supervisors instructed

him to contact Pfizer’s Starter Administration Department to

further discuss his distribution of starter drugs in Russia and

North Carolina. Pfizer’s evidence showed that during Dotson’s conversation with Jim Batura ("Batura"), a Pfizer

employee Dotson reached on the "compliance hotline," Dotson told Batura that he had received a signature from his family pediatrician, a Dr. Foster, acknowledging receipt of the

Zithromax that he eventually donated to the Russian orphanage. Batura determined that while Dotson’s actions may have

violated Pfizer policy, they did not constitute a reportable

offense under the PDMA. 

During the course of litigation, Pfizer realized that Dr. Foster dated her signature after Dotson’s trip to Russia. It questioned Dotson about the timing of the signature; Dotson then

claimed that a Dr. Rusher had signed for the Zithromax prior

to Dotson’s trip to Russia, but that he had lost the starter form

and sought a replacement form from Dr. Foster after he

returned. In an affidavit, Dr. Rusher testified that he had no

recollection of discussing Dotson’s plan to donate the Zithromax or of signing a starter form. After receiving this new

information, Batura determined that he had a duty to report

several of Dotson’s misrepresentations to the FDA. Pfizer

argued that it would have fired Dotson for these misrepresentations, independent of its stated reason for terminating him

in November 2003. After the jury returned its verdict, which

indirectly indicated that it credited Pfizer’s defense, Dotson

16 DOTSON v. PFIZER
moved for judgment as a matter of law on the after-acquired

evidence defense.7

An after-acquired evidence defense limits an employer’s

liability when the employer discovers evidence of "wrongdoing . . . of such severity that the employee in fact would have

been terminated on those grounds alone if the employer had

known of it at the time of the discharge." McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 362-63 (1995). In

evaluating an after-acquired defense, a court "must look to the

employer’s actual employment practices and not merely the

standards articulated in its employment manuals." Sellers v.

Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing O’Day v.

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756, 759 (9th

Cir. 1996)). 

Dotson argues that the district court should have rejected

Pfizer’s after-acquired evidence defense because the evidence

"acquired" was in Pfizer’s possession before his termination

and, in any event, Dotson’s alleged conduct would not normally have warranted discharge. He emphasizes a note from

Kennedy to McElerney pointing out a discrepancy in the timing of Dotson’s starter authorizations. Dotson contends that

this note shows that Pfizer was aware of the starter problem,

allegedly uncovered during the discovery process, before it

fired Dotson. 

7The amount of damages awarded by the jury indicated that it cut off

back pay at or around the date on which Pfizer disclosed Dotson’s alleged

misrepresentations to the FDA — not, as normally required when an afteracquired defense is credited, at the time the new evidence was discovered.

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 362 (1995). The

jury did not make a separate finding on the defense. The after-acquired

evidence defense became an important issue on appeal because Pfizer

argued that the jury’s acceptance of its defense would provide an alternative ground for the district court’s decision denying front pay. See Wallace

v. Dunn Constr. Co., 62 F.3d 374, 380 (11th Cir. 1995). We conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying front pay, and so

have no need to determine whether the jury "credited" Pfizer’s defense. 

DOTSON v. PFIZER 17
What was discovered during Dotson’s deposition, however,

was that he had misled Batura, the starter compliance official,

by telling him that Dr. Foster had signed a starter form prior

to Dotson’s trip to Russia. This conversation, Pfizer claims,

led it to refrain from contacting the FDA to report a problem

with its handling of starters. Dotson’s argument that the evidence is not truly "after-acquired" is specious. His supervisors, who may have known that something was amiss with

Dotson’s starter forms, directed him to call Pfizer’s compliance department. Pfizer put on evidence showing that Dotson

misled a compliance official and that the extent of the purported deception did not become clear until after litigation

began and Pfizer obtained a new explanation from Dotson,

which it later discovered was also questionable. The evidence

was "after-acquired": Dotson’s misleading of Batura was

revealed only after Dotson filed suit. 

The second question, which we decide using the same standard as the trial judge, is whether a reasonable jury could have

found for Pfizer on its claim that it would have terminated

Dotson for his allegedly misleading conversation with Batura.

Pfizer argues that it would have terminated an employee for

misrepresenting material facts to a company official investigating starter misuse. At trial, Pfizer introduced the testimony

of Dawn Rogers, the Human Resources Vice President for

Pfizer, who stated that Dotson would have been terminated

based on what Pfizer discovered after the commencement of

litigation. We conclude that this testimony would allow a reasonable jury to agree with Pfizer on this element of its afteracquired evidence defense, and so the district court correctly

denied Dotson’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Because we reject Dotson’s assertion that the district court

should have granted his motion for judgment as a matter of

law on Pfizer’s after-acquired evidence defense, it is clear that

the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Pfizer to

amend its Answer or in denying Dotson’s motion in limine to

exclude the evidence from trial. 

18 DOTSON v. PFIZER
III.

Both parties question the district court’s decisions related

to damages and compensation. Pfizer appeals the liquidated

damages award and argues that the court awarded excessive

attorneys’ fees in light of Dotson’s limited recovery. Dotson

claims that he is entitled to pre-judgment interest, front pay,

and additional attorneys’ fees. 

We review a district court’s rulings on questions of damages for abuse of discretion. Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461, 467

(4th Cir. 2007); Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858, 868-

69 (8th Cir. 2006); Duke v. Uniroyal Inc., 928 F.2d 1413,

1424 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court "abuses its discretion

only if its conclusions are based on mistaken legal principles

or clearly erroneous factual findings." People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 370 (4th

Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

A.

Dotson appeals the district court’s denial of his request for

front pay. He asked for approximately $8 million in front pay,

including lost future earnings and benefits stretching fifteen

years into the future — until, as Dotson explained, a planned

early retirement at age 58. 

Under the FMLA, a wronged employee is entitled to "such

equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment,

reinstatement, and promotion," along with damages. 29

U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(B). The statute does not identify front

pay as an equitable remedy, but we have recognized it as a

proper form of relief that is "an alternative and complement

to reinstatement." Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d

294, 307 (4th Cir. 1998). Determinations of front pay are

made by the trial court sitting in equity. Id. at 307 (citing

Duke v. Uniroyal, 928 F.2d 1413, 1424 (4th Cir. 1991)). A

trial court must "temper" the use of front pay by recognizing

DOTSON v. PFIZER 19
"the potential for windfall" to the plaintiff. Duke, 928 F.2d at

1424. We review the denial of an award of front pay for abuse

of discretion. See Nichols v. Ashland Hosp. Corp., 251 F.3d

496, 504 (4th Cir. 2001). 

The district court believed that front pay from the date of

termination until Dotson’s planned retirement was simply too

speculative to award. The court cited Peyton v. Dimario, a

Title VII case which held that front pay for 26 years was

unduly speculative; the Peyton Court also noted that the balance of authority suggested that courts disfavored lifetime

front pay awards for plaintiffs in their forties. Peyton v.

Dimario, 287 F.3d 1121, 1129-30 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The district court stated that it would have been inclined to award

front pay for a more limited duration — such as the approximately three years between Dotson’s termination and the

point at which he secured a similar though lesser-paying job

at GlaxoSmithKline — had the jury’s award plus liquidated

damages not made Dotson whole by covering his projected

losses over those three years. 

Dotson objects to the district court’s characterization of

what he claimed would be uninterrupted future employment

with Pfizer as speculative. He also disputes its determination

that liquidated damages made him whole for his future losses.

Dotson suggests that, since he has not found a position as

remunerative as the one he held with Pfizer, he will not be

"made whole" unless he receives compensation to make up

the difference, starting at the date of his termination and looking more than a decade into the future. 

Under these circumstances, we do not believe the district

court abused its discretion in denying Dotson front pay. At the

time the court ruled on Dotson’s request for front pay, Dotson

had secured full-time employment in the pharmaceutical services industry, making approximately $65,000 less than the

approximately $232,000 in salary and benefits he made prior

20 DOTSON v. PFIZER
to his termination. Thus, he had secured comparable, if not

precisely equivalent, work at another major drug company. 

Dotson goes to great lengths to show that front pay in his

case would not be unduly speculative. The speculative nature

of the inquiry, though, does not stem just from the question

whether Dotson would have stayed with Pfizer through the

end of his career had he not been fired. It also necessarily

involves speculation as to what Dotson’s post-termination

future holds. The court was within its discretion to refuse to

assume that Dotson would never earn a salary comparable to

what he made at Pfizer, given his relative youth and education

level. Considering that (1) the determination of front pay is

inherently speculative; (2) Dotson was of a relatively young

age when terminated; (3) he is highly educated and experienced; and (4) he sought front pay from the date of his termination until the date he claims he would have retired, fifteen

years in the future, we cannot say that the district court abused

its discretion in denying front pay.

Finally, Dotson finds error in the court’s consideration of

the role played by the liquidated damages in making him

whole. If, as he argues, the remedial intent of the FMLA is to

make wronged employees whole, it is difficult to understand

why a lower court cannot consider the role of liquidated damages in reaching this overarching goal. Other courts have

allowed such a consideration, although some have cautioned

that the award of liquidated damages should play only a minor

role in determining whether front pay is appropriate. See, e.g.,

Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 499 F.3d 474, 490-91 (5th

Cir. 2007); Downes v. Volkswagen of America., Inc., 41 F.3d

1132, 1141 (7th Cir. 1994). Given the relatively short gap of

two years that the court observed between Dotson’s termination and his securing of roughly comparable employment, the

court’s consideration of liquidated damages in making Dotson

whole was not an abuse of discretion.

DOTSON v. PFIZER 21
B.

Dotson also claims that the district court improperly

refused to award pre-judgment interest. Under the FMLA, an

employer "shall be liable" for the pre-judgment interest on the

amount of "any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other

compensation denied or lost to [an employee] by reason of the

[FMLA] violation." 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii); see also

Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858, 869 (8th Cir. 2006)

(interpreting § 2617 to require pre-judgment interest).8 The

district court explained that it did not award pre-judgment

interest because Dotson did not request it in the initial posttrial proceedings. Dotson did, however, request pre-judgment

interest in his complaint and in a pre-trial brief. He raised the

issue again in a Rule 59 motion to amend the district court’s

judgment on damages.9 In its Memorandum Opinion deciding

8There is a discrepancy between the mandatory language of § 2617 and

the permissive formulation of one regulation addressing FMLA remedies,

which states that "the employee may be entitled to interest" on FMLA

damages. 29 C.F.R. § 825.400(c). Here, as always, the plain meaning of

the unambiguous statute controls. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S.

281, 291-92 (1988) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def.

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984)). 

9Pre-judgment interest is considered to be part of the merits of a court’s

decision, and so a motion requesting such interest is properly classified as

a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. Osterneck v. Ernst &

Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 176-77 & n.3 (1989); see also Kosnoski v. Howley, 33 F.3d 376, 378 (4th Cir. 1994). We have previously required, in an

unpublished opinion, that to avoid waiving pre-judgment interest, a litigant must raise the issue within the time constraints imposed by Rule

59(e), which allows no more than 10 days to file a motion to alter or

amend a judgment. Hanson v. Cerrone & Assoc., Inc., 1993 WL 98777,

at *3 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 1993); but see Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223,

1245 (10th Cir. 2001) (finding no authority requiring a litigant to raise the

issue of entitlement to pre-judgment interest via a Rule 59(e) motion to

preserve an appeal when the issue was raised in the complaint). Here, the

district court awarded judgment for damages and costs in two stages: first,

it entered the jury award for retaliation and interference; second, the court

invited briefing on other damages and costs to which Dotson might be

22 DOTSON v. PFIZER
the parties’ initial post-trial motions, the district court stated,

in a footnote, that while pre-judgment interest "may also be

awarded," Dotson had not asked for it in his initial post-trial

brief. Mem. Op. of Aug. 29, 2007, at 3 n.2. For that reason,

the district court denied Dotson’s subsequent request for prejudgment interest, made under Rule 59(e), as untimely. Mem.

Op. of Nov. 19, 2007, at 3-5. In support of this finding, the

court reasoned that pre-judgment interest constituted "additional" relief that would have required briefing within the

schedule that it set for post-trial motions. Id. at 5. 

We reverse the district court’s decision because prejudgment interest on FMLA damages is mandatory rather than

discretionary. Pre-judgment interest also does not constitute

the kind of "additional" relief that requires briefing — unlike

other FMLA remedies like front pay and liquidated damages,

which the district court has the discretion to reduce or deny

outright. Pre-judgment interest automatically becomes part of

the damages award under the plain terms of the statute. 29

U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). Given the statutory command

to include pre-judgment interest as part of FMLA damages,

the district court should have awarded pre-judgment interest

regardless of whether Dotson reiterated his pre-trial requests

for it in the post-trial motion. In this case — where prejudgment interest was requested in several documents filed

before trial — Dotson was entitled to the interest, which

should have been awarded at the time the district court

awarded him liquidated damages and other costs and fees.10

entitled. The court then entered a second order awarding liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and denying front pay. Dotson filed his

Rule 59(e) motion for pre-judgment interest within 10 days of the entry

of this second order. He did not waive pre-judgment interest, and so the

district court’s decision is ripe for review. 

10The district court noted that pre-judgment interest is not warranted

automatically, at least insofar as the rate of interest is not defined by statute and different courts use different interest calculations. The question

whether Dotson was entitled to pre-judgment interest, though, is separate

from the question of what rate applies. The court could have found that

Dotson was at least entitled to this relief without briefing — even if determining the appropriate interest rate would require additional briefing. 

DOTSON v. PFIZER 23
Pfizer’s arguments in opposition lack merit. The case it

cites to support its assertion that pre-judgment interest is discretionary addresses a different statute — one that does not

provide for pre-judgment interest. See Eden v. Amoco Oil Co.,

741 F. Supp. 1192, 1196 (D. Md. 1990). We also reject

Pfizer’s contention that Dotson was made whole without prejudgment interest. Regardless of whether a court believes that

a plaintiff is made whole by a jury award alone, the FMLA

requires the award of pre-judgment interest. In effect, Congress has stipulated as to what will make a wronged employee

whole under the FMLA, and we are bound by that legislative

decision. 

C.

The FMLA entitles a wronged employee to an additional

award of liquidated damages equal to the sum of the amount

awarded for damages and the interest on that amount. 29

U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(iii). Normally, liquidated damages are

awarded automatically under the statute. If, however, the

employer "proves to the satisfaction of the court" that the violation of § 2615 "was in good faith and that the employer had

reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was

not a violation," the court, in its discretion, may choose not

to award liquidated damages. Id. The employer has a "plain

and substantial burden" to persuade the court that its failure

was in good faith and that it would be unfair to impose liquidated damages. Mayhew v. Wells, 125 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir.

1997) (quotation omitted) (interpreting liquidated damages

provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act). The employer

must show objective good faith. See id. (citing Clifton D.

Mayhew, Inc. v. Wirtz, 413 F.2d 658, 661-62 (4th Cir. 1969)).

Pfizer’s decision-makers, the company contends, did not

know that Dotson had inquired about FMLA leave, and so the

district court punished Pfizer for not knowing the statutory

implications of Dotson’s adoption-related leave. This argument ignores Pfizer’s statutory burden of seeking out further

24 DOTSON v. PFIZER
information and complying with the FMLA when an

employee indicates that he or she is seeking leave for a protected reason. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b). Pfizer had affirmative obligations it did not meet. The district court was well

within its discretion to find that Pfizer did not make a showing of good faith. 

Our decision that Dotson is entitled to pre-judgment interest, however, requires that we vacate the award of liquidated

damages and return it to the district court for recalculation

after the addition of pre-judgment interest. See supra at subsection III.B; 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii) (prescribing

liquidated damages equal to the sum of damages and prejudgment interest).

D.

Both parties contest the attorneys’ fees awarded to Dotson’s counsel. Pfizer claims that the amount of attorneys’ fees

awarded — $375,000 — was excessive considering that Dotson recovered $666,610.50 on his claims. 

The FMLA directs the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees

to a prevailing plaintiff. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3); see McDonnell v. Miller Oil Co., 134 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 1998). The

amount of attorneys’ fees awarded is at the trial court’s discretion. Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp., 48 F.3d 1343, 1359

(4th Cir. 1995) (citing Rum Creek Coal Sales v. Caperton, 31

F.3d 169, 174 (4th Cir. 1994)). A reviewing court should

reverse discretionary fee awards only "if under all the facts

and circumstances [the award] is clearly wrong." Id. (citation

and quotation omitted) (alteration in original). In calculating

a reasonable lodestar fee, the district court looks to "the nature

and extent of the services supplied, the customary hourly rate

of compensation, the number of hours expended, the skill

required, the complexity of the case, and the success achieved

by the plaintiff." Id. (citing Rum Creek Coal Sales, 31 F.3d at

175). The reasonable number of hours and reasonable rate is

DOTSON v. PFIZER 25
determined by reference to the twelve factor test set forth in

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 717-19

(5th Cir. 1974). See, e.g., McDonnell, 134 F.3d at 640.

Pfizer claims that, because it prevailed on its after-acquired

evidence defense, Dotson won only a limited victory. Thus,

the Court should reduce the attorneys’ fees awarded, because

"the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained."

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983). "Even when

an award of attorneys’ fees is mandatory, the district court

may decrease the amount of fees that might otherwise be

awarded in order to account for the plaintiff’s limited success." McDonnell, 134 F.3d at 641. Here, the district court

reduced the amount claimed by Dotson’s attorneys from

$550,000 to $375,000. Even if Pfizer prevailed, or partially

prevailed, on the after-acquired evidence defense it raised, we

do not find the district court’s attorneys’ fee award "clearly

wrong." Martin, 48 F.3d at 1359. The court properly took into

account Dotson’s limited recovery and reduced the fee award

accordingly.

The district court limited Dotson’s attorneys’ fees because

he did not obtain all the relief requested in his complaint. Dotson claims he is entitled to higher attorneys’ fees, since the

district court wrongfully denied Dotson the full relief he

requested. Because we hold that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying front pay, it is clear that the

court also did not err by limiting Dotson’s fees based on his

failure to recover front pay. 

In its post-trial ruling on Dotson’s motion to amend the

judgment, the district court denied Dotson’s request for additional attorneys’ fees without prejudice, allowing him to

renew his request "upon conclusion of the appellate process

in his favor." Mem. Op. of November 19, 2007, at 7. Our

decision that Dotson should have been awarded pre-judgment

interest — which will require a re-calculation of liquidated

damages — means that Dotson will make a larger overall

26 DOTSON v. PFIZER
recovery on his legal claims. In accordance with the district

court’s earlier decision, we vacate the attorneys’ fee award

and return it to that court for reconsideration based on Dotson’s additional recovery.

IV.

To recapitulate, we hold that Dotson is entitled to prejudgment interest under 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). For

that reason, the attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages must

be recalculated after pre-judgment interest is added to Dotson’s award. We affirm the district court’s judgment in all

other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

DOTSON v. PFIZER 27