# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 27 93

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ena J. Wages

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

St ua rt M an ag em en t Co rp or at io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss as S tu art Co

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 13, 2 01 5
Fil ed : Au gu st 10 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ena W ag es su ed he r em

pl oyer, St u a r t M an ag em en t Co rp or at io n (St ua rtC o)

, al le gi ng th at Stu art Co vi ol at ed he r ri gh ts un de r th e Fam il y an d M ed ic al Leav e Act

, 29 U.S.C. §§ 26 01 –2 65 4. On th e pa rti es ’ cro ss m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, th e
di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of W ag es on he r FMLA cl ai m s. Fo r

t h e reas on s be lo w, we affi rm th e jud gm en t on li ab il it y bu t va cat e an d rem an d t h e jud gm en t o n d am ag es

.I

A. Fact s

S t ua rtC o is a pr op ert y m an ag em en t fir m th at ru ns ap pr ox im at el y t h i r t y

ap art m en t co m

pl ex es

. W ag es be ga n wor ki ng fo r St ua rtC o as a fu ll -ti m e care ta ke r at

on e of it s pr op ert ie s, W oo dr id ge Apa rtment Hom es , on Nov em be r 17

, 20 08

. Gen eral ly, a care ta ke r is res po ns ib le fo r va cu um in g, cl ean i n g , mo p pi ng , was hi ng
win do ws, an d du st in g. Care ta ke rs are al so res po ns ib le fo r sn ow rem ov al

. Wa ge s

wor ke d th irt y ho ur s pe r week at th e co m pl ex

. Her em

pl oyee reco rd was un bl em is he d.

In th e su m

m er of 20 09

, Wa g e s l e a r ne d sh e was pr eg na nt

. The do ct or

co ns id ered he r pr eg na nc y to be hi gh ris k du e to a pr ev io us , li fe-t hr eat en in g, ect op ic

pr eg na nc y

. So m et im e in Ju ne or Ju ly, W ag es co nt act ed St ua rtC o’s hu m an res ou rces
de pa rtment to in qu ire ab ou t po st -b irt h be ne fit s an d le av e. No on e ret ur ne d her cal l,

so W ag es cal le d hu m an res ou rces ag ai n a week la te r, s t a t in g th at sh e wan te d

in fo rm at io n ab ou t FMLA le av e an d ot he r fo rm s of le a v e

. The hu m an res ou rces
di rect or , Deb St ach ows ki , di d n ot reca ll rece iv in g e it he r cal l.

W ag es be ga n e xp eri en ci ng ab do m in al pa in in Octo be r 20 09

, so he r do ct or
di rect ed he r no t t o v acu um or m op an d p ro vi de d h er a no te fo r he r em pl oyer. Afte r

rece iv in g th e do ct or ’s no te

, St ua rt Co re dis tr ibute d th e va cu um in g an d m op pi ng du ti es

to ot he r em

pl oyees. In ad di ti on , St ach ows ki co nt act ed th e do ct or to ve rif y no ot he r job du ti es were re st ric te d.

On Nov em

be r 2, 20 09

, W ag es ’s do ct or wro te an ot he r no te

, st at in g W a g e s

c ou ld carr y ou t al l of he r job res po ns ib il it ie s ex cep t sn ow rem ov al

. St ach ow s k i

co nt act ed th e do ct or reg a r d i n g W ag es ’s pr ev io us res tri ct io ns

. One of th e do ct or ’s

as si st an ts in fo rm ed St ach ows ki th at W ag es st il l co ul d no t m op or va cu um

. W ag es ’s

do ct or ha d t ol d Wage s d ire ct ly tha t s he co ul d re su m e v acu um in g a nd m op pi ng

.

-2

-W ag es ex pe rie nc ed in crea se d a bd om in al pa in in Nov em be r an d m is se d t hr ee
da y s of wor k, Nov em

be r 9, 10

, an d 12

, du e to th e pa in

. On Nov em be r 12

, he r do ct or

li m it ed he r to wor ki ng no m or e th an 20 ho ur s pe r week

. On Fri da y , No ve mber 13

, W ag es wor ke d 4.2 5 ho ur s. Sh e ga ve th e Nov em be r 1 2 d o c t o r’s no te to he r

su pe rv is or , Ro bi n Ful to n, on Nov em be r 13

. Fu lt on em ai le d it to St ach ows ki on th e

sa m e d ay

.

Fu lt on , St ach ows ki

, an d Dav e Bed do w, a St ua rtC o m an ag er, m et on Nov em be r

13 to di sc us s W ag es ’s em pl o y m en t. At so m e po in t du rin g th e co nv ers at io n, th ey
de ci de d to te r mi n a t e h e r em pl oym en t. Fu lt on st at ed in a de po si ti on th at al th ou gh

W ag es was “ ge tt in g by” wit h th e in it ia l res tri ct io ns , he r red uc ti on in ho ur s pr ecl ud ed

W ag es fro m c o mp l e t i ng “ th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s of he r job .” W ag es was no t

sc he du le d to wor k on Sat u r d a y, N ov em be r 14

, or Su nd ay , Nov em be r 15

. On

Mo nd ay , Nov em

be r 16 , aft er Wages arri ve d a t wo rk , Ful to n a nd Sta ch ows ki cal le d

he r in to a m eet in g an d fir ed he r. St ua rtC o pr ov id ed W ag es a le tt er th a t s t a te d

St ua rtC o was “ un ab le to acc o mm o d a t e th e wor k res tri ct io ns pr ov id ed by y ou r ph y si ci an .”

Afte r ex ha us ti ng ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, W ag es su ed St ua rtC o on Nov em be r

16

, 20 12

, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of he r rig ht s un de r t h e F M LA, Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l

Ri gh ts Act of 19 64

, th e Mi nn es ot a Pare nt in g Leav e Act (MP LA), an d th e Mi nn es ot a

Hum an R i g h ts Act (MHRA)

. W it h res pe ct to he r FMLA cl ai m s, W ag es al le ge d

St ua rtC o no t on ly in te rfer ed wit h he r FMLA rig ht s, bu t ret al ia te d ag ai ns t he r aft er sh e

req ue st ed th os e ri gh ts . This ap pe al in vo lv es on ly W ag es ’s FMLA cl ai m s.

-3

-B. Pro ced ur al His to ry

In Ja nu ary 20 14

, W ag es fil ed a m ot io n fo r pa rt i a l su m m ary jud gm en t on he r

FMLA en ti tl em en t cl ai m

. S t u a rtC o al so fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,

req ue st in g di sm is sa l of al l cl ai m s. In May 20 14

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

W ag es on he r en ti tl em en t cl ai m . And , “ [a]lt ho ug h Wage s d id

no t se ek su m

m ary jud gm en t on [h er FMLA ret al ia ti on ] cl ai m ,” th e co ur t su a sp on te

gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t fo r W ag es on th at cl ai m as well

. Howev er, th e di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t in fav or of St ua rtC o on W ag es ’s Tit le VII, MPLA,

an d M HRA cla im s.

To su ccee d on he r en ti tl em en t cl ai m , W ag es ne ed ed to de m on st rat e, in te r al ia

, th at sh e was an FMLA-e li gi bl e em pl oyee an d t h a t sh e pr ov id ed ad eq ua te no ti ce of

he r ne ed fo r F M LA l e av e to he r em pl oyer. Gen eral ly, an em pl oyee is el ig ib le fo r

FMLA be ne fit s on ly if sh e wor k s 1 2 m on th s fo r an FMLA-c ov ered em pl oyer. At

su m m ary jud gm en t, St ua rtC o arg ue d th at it fir ed W ag es on e da y be fo re he r 12 -m on th

an ni ve rs ary wit h th e co m pa ny. The di st ric t co ur t di sa gr eed

. Rel y in g on a cas e fro m

th e Elev en th Ci rcu it an d an FMLA reg ul at io n, it he ld W ag es sa ti sf ie d th e 12 -m on th

req ui rem en t by us in g no n- FMLA le av e to “b r id ge th e ga p” or carr y he r to th e
el ig ib il it y da te , Nov em

be r 16

.

W it h res pe ct to th e se co nd req ui rem en t of he r en ti tl em en t cl ai m —n ot ic e—t he

di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at “ W ag es pl ai nl y m et th is req ui rem en t” be cau se sh e “ ga ve th e
do ct or ’s no te to [St ua rtC o] on Nov em be r 13

, wit hi n on e da y of rece iv in g [it ]. ” And

th e no ti ce was “s u f

f ic ie nt to m ak e [St ua rtC o] aware ” th at W ag es ne ed ed FMLA

le av e. Bec au se no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact ex is te d an d be cau se W ag es wou ld

su ccee d a s a m at te r of

law, t he di st ric t co ur t g ran te d s um m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

W ag es on he r en ti tl em en t cl ai m

.

-4

-To su ccee d on he r FMLA ret al ia ti on cl ai m , W ag es ha d to de m on st rat e th at sh e

e x e r c i s e d rig ht s affo rd ed by th e FMLA, th at sh e su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t

act io n, an d th at th e ad ve rs e em pl oyme n t act io n ha d a cau sa l co nn ect io n to th e

p r o t e ct ed FMLA act iv it y

. Bec au se te rm in at io n is un eq ui vo cal ly an ad ve r s e

em pl oym en t act io n an d be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t pr ev io us ly he ld W ag es was FMLA

el ig ib le

, th e co ur t no te d th e on ly fig ht in g is su e was whe th er W ag es ’s te rm in at io n was

c au sa ll y co nn ect ed to he r req ue st ed FMLA le av e. The reco rd de m on st rat ed

,

acco rd in g to th e di st ric t co ur t, th at W ag es was te rm in at ed be ca us e sh e req ue st ed a
red uc ed sch ed ul e th at was p ro te ct ed un de r th e FMLA. The refo re, t he di st ric t co ur t

gr an te d s um m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of W ag es on he r ret al ia ti on cla im

.

St ua rtC o fil ed a le tt er req ue st in g pe rm is si on to fil e a m ot io n to reco ns id er. In

su pp or t, Stu art Co su bm it te d an affid av it fro m St ach ows ki an d arg ue d th at th e co ur t

erre d by m ak in g cert ai n f act ua l de te rm in at io ns

. The co ur t refu se d to co ns id er

St ach ows ki ’s affi da vi t be cau se sh e was av ai la bl e to St ua rtC o be fo re th e co ur t is su ed

it s or de r. And “ [t]he on ly reas on th e in fo rm at io n was no t in th e reco rd on su m m ary jud gm en t [was ] be cau se [St ua rtC o] ch os e no t to pr es en t it to th e Co ur t.” The di st ric t

co ur t d en ie d S tu art Co ’s req ue st to fil e a m ot io n t o re co ns id er.

The pa rti es th en fil ed cro ss m ot io ns to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t. St ua rtC o

arg ue d th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t on W ag es ’s FMLA

c l a im s, an d W ag es as ke d th e co ur t to award da m ag es fo r St ua rtC o’s FMLA

vi ol at io ns

.

St ua rtC o’s arg um en t wit h res pe ct to li ab il it y was two fo ld : fir st

, W ag es was no t

el ig ib le fo r FMLA le av e; se co nd

, a jury sh ou ld h a v e de ci de d whe th er W ag es ga ve
ad eq ua te no ti ce of he r ne ed fo r FMLA leav e be cau se it was a qu es ti on of fact

, no t a

qu es ti on of l aw.

-5

-Reg ard in g St ua rtC o’s arg um en t th at W ag es was no t el ig ib le fo r FMLA le av e,

St ua rtC o ag ai n su p p o r te d it s arg um en t wit h an affi da vi t fro m St ach ows ki

. The

di st ric t co ur t ag a i n r e f

us ed to co ns id er th e affi da vi t be cau se “ [t]he affi da vi t is ne w

ev id en ce, bu t it is n o t n ewly di sc ov ered ev id en ce.” The di st ric t co ur t up he ld it s

in it ia l ru li ng

. Reg ard in g St ua rtC o’s arg um en t th at a jury sh ou ld de ci de w he th er

W ag es g a v e a d e q u at e no ti ce, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th ere were no is su es of

m at eri al fac t an d th e no ti ce was su ffi ci en t as a m at te r of la w. The di st ric t co ur t

ex pr es sl y no te d no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e do ct or ’s no te fai le d

to pro vi de ad eq ua te no ti ce t o S tu art Co

.

Nex t, th e di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d W ag es ’s req ue st fo r da m ag es

. Sh e as ke d th e

c o u rt fo r ba ck pa y , pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t, a ta x gr os s- up , li qu id at ed da m ag e s , a n d

po st -jud gm en t in te res t. The di st ric t co u r t award ed W ag es $4 9,7 69 .09 in ba ck pa y ; $3 0,8 76 .10 in pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t on th e ba ck pa y ; $8 0,6 45 .19 in l iq ui da te d

da m ag es ; and po st -jud gm en t in te res t at a rat e of 11 % co m pu te d dai ly, co m

po un de d

an nu al ly fro m th e da te of

jud gm en t. The co ur t refu se d to award W ag es a ta x gr os s- up
be cau se th e co ur t l ack ed st at ut or y au th or it y to do so un de r th e FMLA.

W ag es su bs eq ue nt ly fil ed an ot he r m ot io n to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t.

W ag es no te d th at th e co rrec t po st -jud gm en t in te res t rat e sh ou ld be 0.1 1%— no t 11 %.

The co ur t ag reed an d re du ced th e in te res t ra te to 0.1 1%.

St ua rtC o th en fil ed a m ot io n to va cat e th e am en de d da m ag es jud gm en t. The

gr av am en of St ua rtC o’s arg um en t was th at th e d is tri ct co ur t i ss ue d i ts or de r, whi ch

co rrec te d th e po st -jud gm en t in te res t rat e, be fo re St ua rtC o was ab le to su bm it a

res po ns e br ie f, th ereb y de nyin g St ua rtC o du e pr oc es s. The di st ri c t c o u r t de ni ed

St ua rtC o’s m ot io n fo r se ve ral reas on s: (1 ) th e or de r act ua ll y fav or ed St ua rtC o; (2 )

St ua rtC o pl an ne d to “ fo reg o po st -jud gm en t rev ie w of th e da m ag es award an d wou ld

in st ead co nt es t al l d am ag es is su es on ap pe al ”; (3) th e or de r was li m it ed to th e po st

-

-6

-jud gm en t in te r e s t r a t e ; an d (4 ) ev en if St ua rtC o ha d pr es en te d it s arg um en ts

, th e

di st ric t co ur t wo ul d h av e reject ed th em

.

St ua rtC o ap pe al s th e di s t r i c t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of

W ag es on he r FMLA cl ai m s. In ad di ti on , St ua rtC o ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s award

of da m ag es to W ag es

.

II

W e rev ie w a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , co ns tru in g th e reco rd in th e

li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty. Ri ck ard v. Swed is h Mat ch N. Am

., In c.,

77 3 F.3 d 18 1, 18 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Eve n if no t di sc us se d by th e di st ric t co ur t, we m ay

affi rm on an y gr ou nd su pp or te d by t h e reco rd

. In te rs ta te Bak eri es Co rp

. v.

One Bea co n In s. Co ., 68 6 F .3d 53 9, 5 42 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

A. FMLA Ent it le m en t Cl ai m

To pr ev ai l on he r FMLA en ti tl em en t cl ai m , Wage s ha d to sh ow th at sh e was

an eli gi bl e em

pl oyee an d th at sh e ga ve ad eq ua te no ti ce to h er em pl oyer of h er n eed

fo r FMLA le av e. St ua rtC o arg ue s th at W ag es was no t an el ig ib le em pl oyee be cau se
sh e di d no t w o r k f

o r a fu ll 12 m on th s. It al so di sp ut es th at W ag es ga ve ad eq ua te

no ti ce.

An “ el ig ib le em

pl oyee” is “ an em

pl oyee who ha s be en em pl oyed— (i) fo r at

l e a st 12 m on th s by th e em pl oyer wit h res pe ct to who m le av e is req ue st ed un de r

se ct io n 26 12 of th is ti tl e; an d (ii ) fo r at le as t 1,2 50 ho ur s of se rv ic e w it h su ch

em pl oyer du rin g th e pr ev io us 1 2

- mo n t h p e rio d.” 29 U.S.C. § 26 11 (2 )(A). The

pa rti es do no t d is pu te W ag es work ed 1,2 50 ho ur s fo r St ua rtC o.

-7

-The is su e is w h e t h e r Wa ge s ha d be en em pl oyed by St ua rtC o fo r at le as t 12

m on th s. Unc on tro ve rte d ev id en ce de m on st r a t es th at W ag es was em pl oyed by

St ua rtC o fo r 12 m on th s. W ag es be ga n he r em pl oym en t on Nov em

be r 17

, 20 08

. As

a res ul t, sh e ne ed ed to wor k un ti l Nov em be r 16

, 20 09

, to sa ti sf

y th e 12 -m on th

req ui rem en t. In a le tt er in fo rm in g W ag es of St ua r t C o ’s de ci si on to te rm in at e he r

em pl o ym e n t

, St ua rtC o st at ed “ [Wages ’s] em pl oym en t wit h St ua rtC o ha s be en

te rm in at ed

. Our re co rd

s wi ll re fl ect to da y as [ W ag es ’s ] la st da

y wo rk ed .” (em ph as is

ad de d)

. Th e le tt er was da te d Mo nd ay , Nov em be r 16

, 20 09

. W ag es ’s ti m ecar d fo r

Nov em be r 16 al so sh ows th at sh e wor ke d on Nov em be r 16

. Nov em

be r 17 wou ld

ha ve be en th e fir st da y of W ag es ’s se co nd y ear wit h St ua rtC o. Bec au se sh e sa ti sf ie d

th e 12 -m on th req ui rem en t, W ag es was an el ig ib le em pl oyee as d e f

in ed by th e

FMLA. 1

Nex t, W ag es ne ed ed to pr ov id e ad eq ua te no ti ce to St ua rtC o. The no ti ce m us t

be “ su ffi ci en t to m ak e th e em pl oyer aware th at th e em

pl oyee ne ed s FMLA-q ua li fy in g
le av e, an d [th e em

pl oyee m us t in fo r m t h e em

pl oyer of ] th e an ti ci pa te d ti m in g an d

du rat io n of th e le av e.” 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.3 0 2 ( c )

. FMLA reg ul at io ns req ui re an

em pl oyee to pr ov id e no ti ce 30 da y s be fo re fu tu re le av e if “p r a ct ic ab le .” Id

. § 82 5.3 0 2 ( a )

. A n em

pl oyee is req ui red to in fo rm he r em pl oyer “ as so on as

pr act ic ab le ” if th ere is a ch an ge in ci rcu m st an ces or a med i c a l em erg en cy

. Id

. Sect io n 82 5.3 02 (b ) de fin es th e te rm “ [a]s so on as pr act ic ab le ” to m ean “ as so on as
bo th po ss ib le an d pr act ic al

, ta ki ng in to acco un t al l of th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces in

th e in di vi du al cas e.” When req ue st in g F MLA le av e:

W e no te th at we ne ed no t de ci de whe th er no n- F M LA l e a v e c an be us ed to 1

“ br id ge th e ga p” be twee n an em pl oyee’s te rm in at io n da te (o r th e da te he r no n- FMLA
le av e co m

m en ces ) an d h e r 1 2

- mo nt h el ig ib il it y da te

, as th e di st ric t co ur t he ld

. Rat he r, we fin d W ag es was em pl oyed by St ua rtC o fo r th e req ui si te 12 m on th s. “ W e

m ay a f f i r m t h e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t on an y ba si s di sc lo se d in th e reco rd

, whe th er or no t th e di st ric t co ur t ag ree d wit h or ev en ad dr es se d th at gr ou nd .”

In te rs ta te Bak eri es , 68 6 F .3d at 5 42 (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

-8

-[if

] an em pl oyee se ek s l e a v e f

or th e fir st ti m e fo r a FMLA-q ua li fy in g

reas on , th e em

pl oyee ne ed no t exp res sl y as se rt rig ht s un de r th e FMLA

or ev en m en ti on th e FMLA. Wh e n a n e mplo y ee se ek s le av e du e to a FMLA-q ua l ifyin g reas on , fo r whi ch th e em pl oyer ha s pr ev io us ly

pr ov id ed FMLA-p ro te ct ed le av e, th e em pl oyee m

us t sp eci fic al ly
refe ren ce t he qu al ifyin g re as on for lea ve or t he ne ed for FMLA le av e.

Id . § 8 25 .30 2( c).

St au rtC o arg ue s th at Wa ge s fai le d to in fo rm St ua rtC o of he r ne ed fo r le av e.

It as se rts th e do ct or ’s no te w a s i n s uf fic ie nt an d W ag es ne ve r sa id or di d an y th in g
be y on d su bm it ti ng th e do ct or ’s no te

. W e di sa gr ee. The do ct or ’s no te refe ren ced th e

r e a s o n ( h e r pr eg na nc y ) an d th e ne ed fo r le av e. See Ph il li ps v. Mat he ws, 54 7 F.3 d

90 5, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (n ot in g an em pl oyee do es no t ne ed to in vo ke th e FMLA by

na m e to pu t th e em

pl oyer on no ti ce of he r ne ed fo r FMLA le av e). The do ct or ’s no te

al so li st ed th e res tri ct io n: no m or e th an 20 ho ur s of wor k pe r w e e k

. Fu rth er, ou r

rev ie w of th e reco rd de m on st rat es W ag es act ed as so on as po ss ib le an d pr act ic al

. W ag es su bm it te d th e do ct or ’s no te to S t ua rtC o on Nov em be r 13

, on e da y aft er

rece iv in g t he no te

.

Bec au se W ag es was an el ig ib le em pl oyee an d be cau se sh e pr ov id ed ad eq ua te

no ti ce to St ua rtC o, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or

of W ag es on he r FMLA en ti tl em en t cl ai m

.

B. Ret al ia ti on Cla im

The pa rti es ag ree th at

, to pr ev ai l on he r ret al ia ti on cl ai m , W ag es ha d to sh ow

“t h a t s h e ex erci se d rig ht s affo rd ed by th e [FM LA]

, th at sh e su ffer ed an ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t ac ti on , and th at th ere was a cau sa l co nn ect io n b et ween he r ex erci se of
rig ht s an d th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n.” See Sm it h v. All en Heal th Sy s., In c., 30 2

F.3 d 82 7, 83 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Hav in g al read y de ci d e d Wa g e s i s an el ig ib le

-9

-em

pl oyee, we, li ke th e di st ric t co u rt, fin d th at sh e ex erci se d rig ht s pr ov id ed by th e

FMLA. W e al so ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at he r te rm i n a t i on un eq ui vo cal ly

qu al ifi es as a n a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on

.

The pa rti es di sp ut e whe t he r th ere was a cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n W ag es ’s

te rm in at i o n o f e mplo y m en t an d he r req ue st fo r a red uc ed wor ki ng sc he du le —wh at

we ha ve de te rm in e d w a s q u al ifyin g FMLA le av e. St ua rtC o arg ue s th at th e to ta li ty

of wor k res tri ct io ns th at W ag es ’s d oc to r im pl em en te d res ul te d in St ua rtC o’s

te rm in at io n o f W ag es ’s em pl oym en t, n ot he r at te m

pt to ex erci se FMLA ri gh ts

.

W ag es pr ov i de d St ua rtC o wit h th e do ct or ’s no te on Fri da y , Nov em be r 13

,

w h i c h res tri ct ed he r wor k week to no m or e th an 20 ho ur s. The le tt er in di ca t e d t h e
le av e was pr eg na nc y rel at ed

, an d th eref or e pr ot ect ed by th e FMLA. On th e sa m e da y , Bed do w, Fu lt on , an d St ach ows ki de ci de d to te rm in at e W ag es ’s em pl oym en t. Fu lt on

st at ed in he r de po si ti on th at al th ou gh W ag es was “ ge tt in g by” wit h th e in it ia l

res tri ct io ns (n o sn ow remo v a l

, m op pi ng , or va cu um in g)

, he r red uc ti on in ho ur s

in di cat ed W ag es wou ld no t be ab le to co m pl et e “ th e es se nt ia l fun ct io ns of he r job .”

As a res ul t, St ua rtC o pr ov id ed W ag es wit h a te rm in at io n le tt er th at s ta te d, “ W e are

un ab le to acco m

m od at e th e wor k res tri ct io ns pr ov id ed by y ou r ph y si ci an .” St ua rtC o

ha s po in te d to no ev id en ce to de m on st rat e W ag es wou ld ha ve be en fir ed ba se d on he r

i n i ti al res tri ct io ns al on e. Rat he r, St ua rtC o’s de ci si on to fir e W ag es was di rect l y

co nn ect ed to he r req ue st fo r a red uc ti on in ho ur s, whi ch is pr ot ect ed un de r th e FMLA.

It was at a l l ti m es un di sp ut ed th at W ag es ’s r es tri ct io ns were pr eg na nc y rel at ed an d

no t pe rm an en t. The re ha s be en no su gg es ti on th at sh e co ul d no t co nt in ue m op pi ng ,

va cu um in g, or sh ov el in g at a la te r da te

. Th e F M LA is de si gn ed sp eci fic al ly fo r
si tu at io ns li ke th is

, whe re a lo w-wag e em pl oyee, su ch a s Wa g es , ne ed s te m po rary

pr ot ect io n:

W it ho ut job -s ecu red fam il y a n d med ic al le av e an d it s pr om is e of a
st ead y pa y ch eck up on ret ur n fro m le av e, lo w-wag e wor ke rs in th e m id st

-1 0-of fam il y or m ed i cal em erg en cy ris k de bt

, welf are, an d ev en ho m el es sn es s. W hi le th e ne ed fo r fam il y le av e ap pl ie s to wor ke rs acro ss th e eco no m ic sp ect ru m , th at ne ed is gr eat es t fo r th e lo w wag e ea rn er.

H.R. Rep

. No. 10 3- 8( I), at *2 9 (1 99 3)

. St ua rtC o’s act io ns he re hi gh li gh t th e ne ed fo r

th e FMLA.

Bec au se no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th e req ui red cau sa l co nn ect io n la ck in g,

we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or o f W ag es on he r

FMLA ret al ia ti on cla im

.

III

A di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t is rev ie wed fo r an
ab us e of di sc ret io n. Twin Ci ty Co ns tr. Co

. of Farg o v. Turt le Mo un ta in Ban d of

Ch ip pe wa In di an s, 9 11 F.2d 13 7, 1 39 (8t h C ir. 1 99 0)

.

W ag es arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by award in g da m ag es be cau se

th e co ur t pro pe rly acte d a s a n eu tra l fa ct -fi nd er in weig hi ng th e ev id en ce su bm it te d
by bo th pa rti es

. St ua rtC o arg ue s th at t h e d is tri ct co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng W ag es ’s

m ot io n to am en d th e jud gm en t whe n it award ed W ag es da m ag es fo r b ack pa y ,
pr ejud gm en t in te res t, an d li qu id at ed da m ag es wit ho ut a tri al on th e m eri ts

. W e ag ree
wit h St ua rtC o. St ua rtC o ha d a rig ht fo r a jury to de te rm in e da m ag es

. See Fri zzel l v.

Sw. Mo to r Frei gh t, 15 4 F.3 d 64 1, 64 3 (6 th Ci r. 19 98 ); se e al so B r ya n t v

. D el ba r

Pro ds

., In c., 18 F. Su pp

. 2d 79 9, 81 0 (M.D. Ten n. 19 98 ) (h ol di n g th at th e FMLA

pr ov id es a rig ht to a jury tri al to de te rm in e ba ck pa y an d li qu id at ed da m ag es ); Helm ly

v. St on e Co nt a in er Co rp ., 95 7 F. Su pp

. 12 74

, 12 76 (S.D. Ga. 19 97 ) (fi nd in g th e FMLA p ro vi de s a r ig ht to a jury tria l o n l ia bi li ty and da m ag es ).

St ua rtC o rep eat ed l y r e q u e st ed a jury to de te rm in e W ag es ’s da m ag es in it s

m ot io ns to th e d is tri ct co ur t:

-1 1-St ua rtC o res pe ct fu ll y as ks th is Co ur t to de ny in pa rt an d to gr an t in pa rt

pl ai nt iff ’s m ot io n an d to award a no m in al am ou nt as ba ck pa y wit h a

co rres po nd in g am ou nt f

o r p reju dg m en t in te res t an d to de ny p la in ti ff’s

req ue st fo r li qu id at ed da m ag es

. In t he al te rn at iv e, de fen da nt

res pe ct fu ll y as ks th e Co ur t to de ny pl ai nt iff ’s m ot io n in it s en ti ret y an d

to set th e m at te r [] for a ju ry tri al on da m ag es

.

In it s m ot io n in op po si ti on to W ag es ’s m ot io n to al te r th e jud gm en t, St ua rtC o ag ai n

as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t “ to de ny in pa rt an d to gr an t in pa rt pl ai nt iff ’s m ot io n

. . . . In

th e al te rn at iv e, [St ua rtC o] res pe ct fu ll y as ks th e Co ur t to de ny pl ai nt iff ’s m ot io n in it s

en ti ret y an d to se t th e m at t e r [ ] f o r a jury tri al on da m ag es .” At ap pe ll at e or al

arg um en t, co un se l fo r St ua rtC o em ph as iz ed th at “ th is is a hi g hl y un us ua l FMLA

em pl oym en t cas e in whi ch th e tri al co ur t no t on ly en te red su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or

of th e pl ai nt iff on li ab il it y m at te rs , bu t th en pr oc eed ed to res ol ve di sp ut ed fact is su es

reg ard in g da m ag es wit ho ut a jury, wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , an d ev en wit ho ut

or al arg um en t.” St ua rtC o al so no te d at or al arg um en t th at it req ue st ed “ a jury tri al on

al l is su es so tri ab le , t ha t in cl ud es da m ag es .” The re are fact ua l di sp ut es th at sh ou ld

ha ve pr ev en te d t h e d i s tri ct co ur t fro m de te rm in in g da m ag es

. Fo r ex am pl e, a jury

sh ou ld ha ve de te rm in e whe th er W ag es m it ig at ed da m ag es (an d t o wh at ex te nt ) an d

whe th er St ua rtC o act ed in ba d fai th

. W e ho ld St ua rtC o is en ti t l e d to ha ve a jury

de te rm in e th e fac tu al di sp ut es rel at ed to da m ag es

.

The di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di s c r e ti on by no t pe rm it ti ng a jury to de te rm in e
da m ag es . W e v acat e th e d am ag es jud gm en t.

IV

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of W ag es on
he r FMLA en ti tl em en t cl ai m an d he r FMLA ret al ia ti on cl ai m

. Howev er, we rev ers e

th e jud gm en t as to da m ag es an d re m an d t he cas e fo r a jury tri al on da m ag es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 2-