FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 1, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 97 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 8- cv -6 06 48 -J AL

LYNN YU K CHUN WAI, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, FEDEX CUSTOMER INFORM ATION SERVICES, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 1, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Fed eral Exp res s C or po rat io n (“ FEC”) a ndFed Ex Cu st om er In fo rm at io n Serv ic es , Inc ., (“ FCIS ”) (c ol le ct iv el y “ Fed Ex” ) ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l an d re ne wedm ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law aft er a jury

ve rd ic t i n fa vo r of

Ly nn YukCh un W ai (“ W ai ”) i n a n a ct io n b ro ug ht pu rs ua ntto th e Fam il y

Med ic al Leav e Actof 1 99 3 (“ FMLA”) , 29 U.S.C. § 2 60 1 e t se q. Fe dEx rai se s t hr ee i ss ue s o n app eal . Firs t, Fe dEx arg ue s t ha t the re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e jury to re as on ab ly con cl ud e th atW ai pro vi de d ad equa te no ti ce t o a le rt F ed Ex tha t s he ha d apo te nt ia l FM LA-qu al ifyin g e ve nt . Seco nd , Fed Ex ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin up ho ld in g the jury’ s $ 22 5,0 00 da m ag es awardbe cau se th e awardis no t s up po rte d b y th e la w andis ag ai ns t t he cl ear wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce. Fi na ll y , Fed Ex ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin in cl ud in g fr on t p ay

init s awa rdof l iqui da te d d am ag es . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm

in pa rt a ndrev ers e in pa rt.

I. W ai was e m

pl oyed b y Fex Ex as a cu st om er s erv ic e rep res en ta ti ve fro m Feb ru ary 19 96 un ti l J ul y

20 06 . In M ay

an d Jun e o f 20 06 , W ai att en de d fo ur m ed ic al ap po in tm en ts to de te rm in e whe th er a n odul e o n h er thyroi d a ndcert ai n su sp ic io us m as se s wer e can cero us . Sub se qu en tl y , onJu ly 19, 2 00 6, Fe dEx te rm in at edW ai fro m

he r em pl oym en t, af

te r sh e h adrece iv edhe r th irddi sc ip li na ry 2le tt er wi th in a twel ve -m on th pe rio d. 1

At tria l, Wai’s supe rv is or , Urva sh i Pu ro hi t (“ Puro hi t” ) te st ifi edto Fed Ex’s po li cy reg ard in g fa m il y

m ed ic al lea ve an d h er kno wled ge of Wai’s m ed ic al co nc ern s. Puro hi t t es ti fie d t ha t i t was Fed Ex’s p ol ic y to gi ve anem

pl oyee pape rwo rkto co m

pl et e whe n re qu es ti ng fam il y m ed ic al lea ve , andth atFed Ex h ad no t g iv enW ai th e ap pr op ria te pape rwo rkfol lo win g Wai’s m ed ic al ap po in tm en ts . As t o P ur oh it ’s kn owl ed ge of Wai’s m ed ic al is su es , sh e te st ifi edth atW ai ha d in qu ire d abo utwhet he r he r ap po in tm en ts fel l u nd er the FMLA, th atsh e kne w W ai was go in g t o a n app oi ntm en t b ecau se of ath yro idpro bl em , andth atsh e le arn ed th atW ai ha d c ert ai n s us pi ci ou s l um ps be cau se W ai no ti fie d h er o f anap po in tm en t wit h asu rg eo n. Ad di ti on al ly, Pu ro hi t ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t, i n aMay 10, 2 00 6 em ai l, the po in t p ers on forth e FMLA s ta te d tha t Wai’s ap po in tm en ts were “ no t y etanFMLA is su e.” The refo re, Pu ro hi t h adadvi se d Wai tha t s he sh ou ldob ta in fo rm s fr om

an ot he r m an ag er fo r “pr eap pr ov edpre au th or iz edpre m ed ic al lea ve ,” a type o f le av e u se d fo r su rg eri es no t co ve redun de r th e FMLA. Fu rth erm or e, W ai he rs el f te st ifi edat t ria l t o P ur oh it ’s kn owl ed ge of h er Under Fe dEx ’s policies, all employees a re r equire d to maintain an attenda nce le vel of 1 96.9 perc ent or higher, a

nd an employee is ter

minated if she r ece ives three war ning le tters or perf ormanc e re minders within a rollingtwelve- month period. In the proc ess of ter minating Wai, Fe dEx calc ulated Wai’s attenda nce pe rce ntag e at 96.7 pe rce nt, which included the f our medica l visits. 3m ed ic al pro bl em s an d t he reas on sh e d idno t co m pl et e th e FMLA fo rm s. Wai te st ifi edth atsh e was op enwith P ur oh itan d t ol d h er ab ou t h er o ng oi ng m ed ic al co nc ern s an d a ny m ed ic al ap po in tm en ts th atsh e was trying to sch edul e. Sh e al so te st ifi edth atsh e h adask edPuro hi t wh ethe r he r m ed ic al pro bl em s wer e co ve red un de r th e FMLA, an d t ha t Pu ro hi t h adin fo rm edhe r th atth e ab se nc es were n ot co ve red . Neverth el es s, Wai te st ifi edth atsh e co nt in ue d t o s eekm ed ic al att en ti on be cau se sh e was co nc ern edth atsh e h adcan cer. W ai als o t es ti fie d t o the da m ag es sh e su ffer edas ares ul t o f he r te rm in at io n. Fi rs t, s he tes ti fie d t o h er m ed ic al an d re ti rem en t b en efi ts whi le work in g a t Fe dEx . Her b en efi ts with F ed Ex i nc lu de d am ed ic al pl anwith v is io n, d en ta l, an d pr es cri pt io n c ov erag e. Sh e rec al le d t ha t thi s p la n was co ve redby a prem iu m of $3 0 p er weekth atwas d educ te d fr om he r pa y ch eck . As to he r ret ire m en t b en efi ts , sh e te st ifi edth atsh e h ada 40 1( k) an d re ti rem en t p lan a t Fe dEx ; was 47 y ears ol d; an d wo ul d h av e b een eli gi bl e fo r (1 ) a p en si on aft er re ti rem en t atag e 5 5 o r ag e 6 0, an d (2 ) anex te ns io n o f he r m ed ic al be ne fit s u nt il Med ic are c ov erag e b eg an . Next , sh e te st ifi edto th e d iff

eren ce b etweenhe r in co m e atFed Ex an d h er i nc om e th erea fte r. Duri ng he r em pl oym en t wi thFed Ex, s he earn ed$3 6,2 65 pe r y ear, p lu s be ne fit s. Fo ll owi ng he r te rm in at io n i n J ul y 20 06 fro m

Fed Ex, s he fou nda job as a va cat io n p la nn er fo r Carni va l Crui se Lin es (“ Carn iv al ”) i n Au gu stor S ep te m be r of 420 06 . W ai tes ti fie d t ha t h er Ca rn iv al ba se sal ary was be twee n $ 11 ,00 0 a nd

$1 3,0 00 pe r y ear. Wai’s in co m e ta x re tu rnfor20 06 sh owe d t ot al in co m e o f $1 6,1 71 forth aty ear. Of th atam ou nt , $8 ,58 3.2 3 i s at tri bu tabl e to a W -2 fro m FCIS . 2 Howev er, Wai te st ifi edth atsh e le ft C arn iv al inJan ua ry 20 07 du e to a lo ng co m m ut e an d t he lo w pay. Sh e subs eque nt ly too k ajob as ares taur an t wai tre ss . The re, s he m ad e $ 27 ,00 0 p er y ear a ndpa idab ou t $ 44 pe r weekin pre m iu m s fo r a he al th in su ran ce p la n. Sh e d idno t h av e a ret ire m en t p la n wh il e worki ng as a wait res s. Befo re the clo se of e vi de nc e, bo th parti es m ov edforrel ie f. Fed Ex o ral ly m ov edforjud gm en t as a m at te r of law, ar gu in g, i n p art , th atno pro pe r no ti ce was gi ve n t o F ed Ex tha t Wai’s co nd it io n warran te d F MLA le av e, an d t ha t Wai h adno t m ethe r bu rd ento sh ow tha t s he was e nt it le d t o F MLA le av e. W ai als o m ov ed or al ly for jud gm en t as a m at te r of law, ar gu in g, i n p art , th atFed Ex kne w W ai was go in g t o s ee a s ur ge on , andth eref or e Fed Ex h adkn owl ed ge su ffi ci en t t o p la ce i t on no ti ce o f a p ot en ti al FMLA is su e. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d b ot h m ot io ns . As

Fe dEx contends that, be cause Wai’s income tax return for 2006 show ed total income 2 for that year

of $16,171, and $8,583.23 is attributableto a W-2 from F CI S, the remainingincome is attributable to Carnival. Howe ver, theevidenc e showe d that, in 2006, Wai’s employ er chang ed fr om FedE x to FCI S and that Wai’s total 2006 earning s would have a lso included ear nings f rom Fe dEx . 5to th e is su e o f no ti ce, the co urt fo un d t ha t t he re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r itto be

a p ro pe r qu es ti on forth e jury. The co urt al so fou ndth atth e is su e o f W ai ’s el ig ib il it y forFMLA le av e was a pr op er fac tu al is su e fo r th e jury. At the clo se of e vi de nc e, bo th pa rti es ren ewedth ei r m ot io ns forjud gm en t as a m atte r of

law, an d t he co urt d en ie d t he same. Inin st ru ct in g t he jury as to da m ag es , th e co urt s ta te d t ha t, i f th e jury were to fin d l os t p ay or b en efi ts by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, the n Wai co ul d re co ve r da m ag es forth e n etpa y or be ne fit s l os t b etweenth e ti m e o f he r te rm in at io n a ndth e d at e o f th e v erd ic t. The jury fo un d i n fa vo r of W ai . Spe ci fic al ly, itfou ndth atW ai ha d p ro ve d by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t s he was e nt it le d t o F MLA le av e; ga ve pr op er n ot ic e to Fed Ex o f th e n eedto be ab se ntfro m work ; an d t ha t s he was te rm in at edbe cau se sh e to okFMLA le av e. The jury award edW ai $2 25 ,00 0 i n da m ag es ag ai ns t Fe dEx , witho utdi ffer en ti at in g h ow i t h adcal cu la te d t ho se da m ag es . The co urt en te redjud gm en t i n fa vo r of W ai in th e am ou ntof $ 22 5,0 00 , an d n ot edth atW ai res erv edth e ri gh t t o s eekatt orne y ’s fees an d o th er co st s. W ai th erea fte r m ov edto am en d t he jud gm en t t o i nc lu de pre jud gm en t in te res t an d l iqui da te d d am ag es . W ai arg ue d s he was e nt it le d t o l iqui da te d da m ag es be cau se Fed Ex d idno t co nduc t a g oo d- fai thin ve st ig at io n o f he r po te nt ia l el ig ib il it y forFMLA le av e. Sh e reque st edli qu id at edda m ag es in th e am ou ntof 6$2 36 ,03 0.3 6, b as edona su m of a ctua l d am ag es of $ 22 5,0 00 an d t he pre jud gm en t in te res t o f $1 1,0 30 .36 . Fed Ex re sp on de d tha t i t h ada reas on ab le ba si s fo r de nyin g W ai FMLA le av e an d d idso in go odfai th . Fed Ex, h owe ve r, di d n otob ject t o t he cal cu la ti on of p reju dg m en t i nt eres t. The co urt awa rd edW ai pre jud gm en t i nt eres t in th e am ou ntof $ 11 ,03 0.0 6, an d a ward edli qu id at edda m ag es in th e am ou ntof he r $2 25 ,00 0 ju ry

awardpl us pre

jud gm en t i nt eres t, t ot al in g $ 23 6,0 30 .36 . Fed Ex m ov edfora ne w tri al or t o a m en d t he jud gm en t, o r inth e al te rn at iv e, fo r rem it ti tu r. Fed Ex ar gu edth atth e jury’ s awa rdof $ 22 5,0 00 was g ro ss ly ex ces si ve , andth atth e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t Fe dEx ha d re cei ve d n ot ic e o f W ai ’s nee d fo r FMLA l eav e was ag ai ns t the gre atweig htof t he ev id en ce. The di stric t co urt de ni edth e m ot io ns , fin di ng th atW ai pre se nt edsu ffi ci en t p ro of up on whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndin he r fav oronth e es se nt ia l el em en ts of h er FM LA cl ai m s. Th is ap pe al en su ed . II . W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Me e In du s. v . Dow Ch em . Co., 6 08 F.3d12 02 , 12 10 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e rev ie w all ev id en ce i n t he reco rdan d d raw al l reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t he no n- m ov in g p arty . Id. at12 11 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l an d t he 7de ni al of am ot io n fo r rem it ti tu r fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Lam be rt v . Ful to n C nt y ., Ga., 25 3 F .3d58 8, 5 95 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ti ng McWho rte r v. C it y of Bi rm in gh am , 90 6 F .2d67 4, 6 77 (11 thCir . 19 90 )); Bro wn v . Ala. Dep ’t of Tran sp ., 59 7 F .3d11 60 , 11 73 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (st at in g t ha t a d is tri ct co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r rem it ti tu r is rev ie wedfora cl ear abu se of di sc ret io n) . Sim il arl y , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to awardli qu id at ed da m ag es forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Co op er v . Ful to n C nt y ., Ga., 45 8 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 -8 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . II I. The FMLA p ro vi de s el ig ib le em pl oyees t he rig htto tak e up t o 1 2 wo rk week s o f un pa idlea ve pe r y ear f oran y on e o r m or e o f se ve ral reas on s. On e o f th os e rea so ns is rel ev an t h ere: “ a se rio us he al thco nd it io n t ha t m ak es th e em pl oyee un ab le to pe rfo rm

th e fu nc ti on s o f th e p os it io n o f su ch em pl oyee.” 29 U.S.C. § 26 12 (a)( 1) (D). The F MLA fu rth er p ro te ct s t he em pl oyee’s rig htto be rei ns ta te d t o th ei r fo rm er p os it io n o r to anequi va le ntpo si ti on up on return fr om lea ve . 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 4( a)(1 )(A)-( B). The FMLA st at es th at , when th e n eces si ty for l eav e is for es eeab le , th e em

pl oyee “ sh al l p ro vi de th e em pl oyer with n otles s t ha n 3 0 da y s’ no ti ce, b efo re the da te th e le av e is to be gi n, o f th e em pl oyee’s in te nt io n t o ta ke lea ve . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 2( e)(2 )(B) . 8To p ro te ctanem pl oyee’s rig ht s, the FMLA cre at edtwo types of c la im s:

“ in te rfer en ce cl ai m s, i n wh ic h a n e m pl oyee as se rts th athi s emplo y er d en ie d o r ot he rwis e in te rfer edwith h is subs ta nt iv e ri gh ts un de r th e Act , andret al ia ti on cl ai m s, i n wh ic h a n e m

pl oyee as se rts th athi s emplo y er d is cri m in at edag ai ns t h im be cau se he en ga ge d i n a ct iv it y pro te ct edby the Act.” St ric kl an d v . W at er Work s & Sewe r Bd . of the Cit y

of B irming ha m , 23 9 F .3d11 99 , 12 06 (11 thCir . 20 01 ) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . To es tabl is h a n i nt erfe ren ce cl ai m , “ anem pl oyee m us t de m on st rat e th athe was d en ie d abe ne fitto whi ch he was e nt it le d u nd er the FMLA.” Ma rti n v . Brev ardCn ty. Pub. Sc h., 5 43 F.3d12 61 , 12 66 -6 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . On th e co nt rary, to es tabl is h aret al ia ti oncla im , “ an em pl oyee m us t s ho w th athi s emplo y er i nt en ti on al ly dis cri m in at edag ai ns t h im for ex erci si ng anFMLA ri gh t.” Id . (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . W ai all eg edbo th of the se cla im s i n h er co m pl ai nt , bu t t he ve rd ic t p ro vi de d th e jury on ly w it h t he cla im of r et al ia ti on . Und er a h ead in g e nt it le d “ Ret al ia ti on ,” th e v erd ic t fo rm

st at edtwo qu es ti on s, b ot h o f whi ch wentso le ly to tha t cl ai m : (1 )

“ Has Ms . W ai pro ve n t ha t h er em pl oym en t was term in at edbe cau se of areque stfor FMLA l eav e? ”; an d (2 ) “ Has Ms . W ai pro ve n t ha t h er em pl oym en t was term in at ed be cau se sh e to okFMLA le av e? ” (R.3 at 1 00 ). Neit he r qu es ti on was d ire ct ed to ward s Wai’s i nt erfe ren ce cl ai m , andth eref or e we co ns id er tha t i ss ue m oo te d. 9Howev er, the jury di d fi ndth atW ai was t erm in at edbe cau se sh e to okFMLA

le av e. Fed Ex d oe s n otno w con te stth e jury’ s fi nd in g re ga rd in g re ta li at io n. In st ead , Fed Ex co nt es ts on ly its no ti ce u nd er the FMLA an d Wai’s s ub se qu en t da m ag es . IV. W e fi rs t ad dr es s Fe dEx ’s arg um en ts rel at in g t o n ot ic e. Fed Ex ar gu es th at W ai di d n otpro vi de no ti ce o f an y FMLA-qua li fy in g e ve ntbe cau se he r st at em en ts were g en eral in na tu re an d s he adm it te d t ha t s he di d n otreca ll sp eci fic s o f wha t sh e to ldFed Ex ab ou t h er ab se nc es . Fed Ex fu rth er ar gu es th at , bec au se W ai pr ov id edth em

no ti ce fr om

he r ph y si ci an s au th or iz in g h er t o re tu rnto work wit ho utres tri ct io ns , itha d n o n eedto co ns id er an y FMLA-qua li fy in g e ve nt . Inord er t o e st ab li sha vi ol at io n o f th e FMLA, n ot ic e m us t b e “ su ffi ci en t t o m ak e th e em

pl oyer aware t ha t the em

pl oyee ne ed s FM LA-qu al ifyin g l eav e, an d th e an ti ci pa te d t im in g a nddu rat io n o f th e le av e.” Cru z v . Pub li x S up er Mk ts . Inc ., 42 8 F .3d13 79 , 13 83 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ti ng 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.3 02 (c)) . The n ot ic e ne edno t b e inwrit in g o r refe r sp eci fic al ly to the FMLA. See 2 9 C .F.R. § 82 5.3 02 (b )-(c ). Fro m

th ere, wh enth e em

pl oyee “ gi ve s s uf

fic ie ntno ti ce t o h er em pl oyer th atpo te nt ia ll y

FMLA-qua li fy in g l eav e is ne ed ed , th e em pl oyer m us t th enasc ert ai n wh ethe r th e em pl oyee’s abs en ce ac tu al ly qua li fie s fo r FMLA

10pr ot ect io n.” Cru z, 42 8 F .3dat 1 38 3 (c it in g S tri ck la nd , 23 9 F .3dat 1 20 9 (c it in g 2 9

C.F.R. § 82 5.3 03 (b ))). The ev id en ce i n t he reco rdis cle arl y su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to h av e fo un d th atW ai pre se nt edFed Ex wi th ad equa te no ti ce o f he r po te nt ia l qua li fic at io n fo r FMLA l eav e. As p rev io us ly stat ed , Pur oh itga ve ex te ns iv e te st im on y as t o h er kn owl ed ge of Wai’s m ed ic al co nc ern s an d app oi nt m en ts . Puro hi t t es ti fie d t ha t W ai in qu ire d abo utwhet he r he r ap po in tm en ts fel l u nd er the FMLA, th atsh e kne w W ai was g oi ng to anap po in tm en t b ecau se of ath yro idpro bl em , andth atsh e le arn edth atW ai ha d c ert ai n s us pi ci ou s l um ps be cau se W ai no ti fie d h er o f an ap po in tm en t wi th a su rg eo n. Pu ro hi t al so advi se d Wai tha t s he sh ou ldob ta in fo rm s fr om

an ot he r m an ag er fo r “pr eap pr ov edpre au th or iz edpre m ed ic al lea ve ,” a type o f le av e u se d fo r su rg eri es no t co ve redun de r th e FMLA. The refo re, di sc us si on s ab ou t Wai’s p ot en ti al eli gi bi li ty for FM LA leav e were o ng oi ng . Test im on y

by the sen io r hu m anres ou rces rep res en ta ti ve , Kim be rly McBra y er, sh ows th atitwas Pu ro hi t’s job as m an ag er t o g iv e em pl oyees FM LA form s t o co m pl et e u nd er ap pr op ria te cir cu m st an ces . Puro hi t n ev er g av e th os e fo rm s t o W ai , des pi te am

pl e n ot ic e o f W ai ’s po te nt ia l n eed . Fu rth erm or e, W ai tes ti fie d t o b ei ng “ ve ry op en ” wit h P ur oh itan d t o s ha rin g sp eci fic de ta il s ab ou t ce rta in m ed ic al pro cedur es . She in fo rm edPuro hi t o f an y 11di ag no st ic tes ts be fo re s ch edul in g t he m , andask edFed Ex wh ethe r he r

ap po in tm en ts were co ve redun de r th e FMLA, s pe ci fic al ly ask in g, “ Sh ou ld n’t I b e ab le to go to th e d oc to r an d g etth es e te st s d on e an d the m amm og ram do ne an d t he lab wo rkdo ne ? Isn ’t all th atco ve redun de r FMLA? ” (R.5 at 9 4) . Also in cl ud ed in ev id en ce was anem ai l fr om W ai to Puro hi t t el li ng he r th atsh e h adan ap po in tm en t wi th a su rg eo n, t o wh ic h P ur oh itres po nd edin pa rt b y tel li ng W ai to

“ fo cu s o n you r he al th an d re co ve ry .” (R.4 at 1 34 ). Mo reo ve r, W ai tes ti fie d t ha t Pu ro hi t s aw he r co m e to workaft er o ne pa rti cu la rly pai nf ul pro cedur e, whe re W ai ’s bo dy hadswel le d up, s he was b arel y ab le to tal k, an d s he ha d alar ge ba nd ag e o n h er n eck . Non ethe le ss , W ai was n ev er g iv enFMLA fo rm s t o co m pl et e an d was in st eadto ldth athe r ap po in tm en ts were n otco ve red . Any of t he ab ov e ex am

pl es are i nd ic at or s t ha t an in di vi du al is go in g t hr ou gh ser io us m ed ic al pr oc edur es th atwou ld , at t he ve ry lea st , warran t fu rth er i nqui ry as t o wh ethe r FMLA l eav e is av ai labl e. Insupp ort o f th ei r arg um en t t o t he co nt rary, FedEx cit es to Gay v. Gi lm an Pap er Co ., 12 5 F .3d14 32 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). In Gay, the em pl oyee was h os pi ta li zed fo r a n erv ou s b reak do wn, b utth e em pl oyee’s hu sb an d t ol d t he em pl oyer th atsh e was havi ng “ so m e te st s ru n.” 12 5 F .3dat 1 43 3. Th e Gay Co urt d eem edth atto be in su ffi ci en t n ot ic e to tri gg er the em pl oyer’s bu rd ento reque stfurth er i nf orm at io n. 12Id . Sim il arl y , inCru z th e p la in ti ff t ol d h er em pl oyer th atsh e requi redlea ve be cau se he r daug ht er was inlab oran d n eed edhe r he lp be cau se he r daug ht er’s hu sb an d h adbro ke n h is co ll ar b on e. 42 8 F .3dat 1 38 1. Th ere, we h el d t ha t t he em pl oyee’s no ti ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s hi ft t he bu rd ento th e em pl oyer to reque st fu rth er i nf

orm at io n. Idat 1 38 0. Unl ik e th e ab ov e-ci te d c as es , ho wev er, the ev id en ce p res en te d h ere was su ffi ci en t t o p utFed Ex o n n ot ic e. Unl ik e th e p la in ti ffs inCru z an d Gay, W ai di d no t wi th ho ldin fo rm at io n fr om he r em pl oyer. She was t ran sp aren t wi th he r supe rv is orab ou t the m ed ic al tes ts be in g p erfo rm edan d h er n eedto tak e ti m e o ff fo r th os e te st s. No r di d s he try to m is le adhe r em pl oyer as t o t he reas on s wh y sh e ne ed edto tak e ti m e o ff o r do wnp la y he r ci rcu m st an ces . She was o pe n a nd fo rth rig htan d p ro vi de d h er em pl oyers wi th as m

uc h i nf orm at io n a s s he ha d av ai labl e to he r on th e p ro cedur es sh e was en du rin g, wh ic h m ad e h er fu ll y co m pl iantwith F MLA no ti ce re qu ire m en ts . Fin al ly, de sp it e th e fac t t ha t Wai was no t re qu ire d t o re fere nc e sp eci fic al ly the FMLA to pro vi de su ffi ci en t n ot ic e, sh e di d s o, wh ic h fu rth er s up po rts th e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t n ot ic e was ad equa te ly giv en . See 2 9 C .F.R § § 8 25 .30 2( c), 8 25 .30 3( b) . Fed Ex’s arg um en t tha t n ei th er Pu ro hi t n orFed Ex’s o th er s up erv is or s wer e on no ti ce as to th e fu ll de ta il s o f W ai ’s con di ti on s i m pr op erl y co ns tru es th e 13ev id en ce i n ali gh t favo rab le to Fed Ex, the m ov in g p arty . Here, Fed Ex was on

no ti ce o f W ai ’s po te nt ia l el ig ib il it y an d s ho ul d h av e co nduc te d areas on ab le in ve st ig at io n i nt o wh ethe r he r ap po in tm en ts were el ig ib le forFMLA co ve rag e. Fed Ex’s arg um en t tha t Wai’s d oc to rs ’ no te s re fu te d h er el ig ib il it y forFMLA le av e, an d t he refo re s at is fie d i ts res po ns ib il it y to in ve st ig at e, is witho utm eri t. W ai ke pthe r supe rv is or s i nf orm edab ou t h er m ed ic al is su es th ro ug ho utth e ti m e th ey pe rs is te d. Th is no ti ce, al on g wi th th e n ot ic e o f he r m an y m ed ic al ap po in tm en ts , sh ou ldha ve ale rte d F ed Ex tha t i t n eed edto co nduc t fu rth er in ve st ig at io n i nt o wh ethe r W ai was e li gi bl e fo r FMLA l eav e. Ther efo re, we affi rm th e jury verd ic t as to li ab il it y an d a ffi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Fed Ex’s ren ewedm ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. V. W e n ex t ad dr es s Fe dEx ’s arg um en ts rel at in g t o d am ag es . Fed Ex fi rs t arg ue s t ha t the $2 25 ,00 0 d am ag e awardis ex ces si ve be cau se th e awardis co nt rary to law an d a ga in stth e cl ear wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce. Sp eci fic al ly, Fed Ex ar gu es th atth e d am ag e awardis co nt rary to l aw be cau se fro ntpa y is anequi tabl e rem edy fo r th e co urt t o a ward , andth e jury ins tru ct io ns di d n otgi ve th e jury the au th or it y to awardfro ntpa y . Fed Ex al so arg ue s t ha t t he awardis no t s up po rte d b y th e ev id en ce b ecau se (1) W ai di d n ottes ti fy to th e v al ue of t he be ne fit s o n h er l os t 14wag es , and(2) W ai fai le d t o e st ab li sh sh e was en ti tl edto ba ckpa y forpa stlo st wag es . Fin al ly, Fed Ex ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin in cl ud in g fr on t p ay in it s awardof l iqui da te d d am ag es . W ai res po nd s, i n p art , th atFed Ex wai ve d i ts arg um en t t ha t t he co urt s ho ul d ha ve de te rm in edfro ntpa y by fail in g t o m ak e th atarg um en t b efo re the di st ric t co urt. Wai fu rth er ar gu es th atFed Ex wai ve d i ts arg um en t re la ti ng to li qu id at ed da m ag es be cau se iton ly argu edth atli qu id at edda m ag es sh ou ldno t b e award ed whe n F ed Ex ac te d i n “ go odfai th .” 1. Waiv er As an in it ia l m at te r, Fed Ex p res erv edit s ar gu m en t tha t t he jury was no t pe rm it te d t o a wardfro ntpa y . Fed Ex ar gu edin it s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l o r to am en d t he jud gm en t tha t the jury was in st ru ct edto on ly award d am ag es fro m th e ti m e o f th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t d eci si on un ti l t he da te of t he ve rd ic t. Thi s was su ffi ci en t t o p res erv e th e is su e. 3

Although de fense counsel fa iled to object duringfinal argument to Wai’s counsel’s 3 statements re lating to f

ront pay , the fa ilure to object doe s not constitute a waiver here beca

use the jury was re quired to follow the instructions on the lawg iven by the trial judg e. Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 664 F .3d 883, -- ( 11th Cir. 2011) (statingthat this Court presumes juries follow the instructions give n to them). Fur ther, the district c ourt instructed the jury that what lawyers sa

y in a ca se is not evidence , that they are to decide the fac ts on the evidenc e in the ca se, and tha t they are to follow the law a s g iven to them by the cour t. The jury

was re quired to follow these instructions. I d. 15Fu rth er, Fed Ex p res erv edit s ar gu m en t t ha t t he di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y in cl ud edfro ntpay

in it s l iqui da te d d am ag es award . Soo n a fte r W ai ’s m ot io n fo r li qu id at edda m ag es , Fed Ex m ov edfora ne w tri al . As st at edab ov e, Fed Ex ar gu ed th e is su e o f fro ntpa y

in th atm ot io n. Subs eque nt ly, Fed Ex re sp on de d t o Wai’s m ot io n fo r li qu id at edda m ag es . Howev er, wh enFed Ex re sp on de d t o t ha t m ot io n, itha d yet to rece iv e a ru li ng fro m th e d is tri ctco urt o n i ts m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Alt ho ug h F ed Ex o nl y

arg ue d i n i ts res po ns e to W ai ’s m ot io n fo r li qu id at ed da m ag es th atitha d a ct edin go odfai th when de nyin g Wai FM LA leav e, itdi d n ot waiv e th is is su e due to th e ti m in g o f th e d is tri ctco urt s im ul ta ne ou sl y

rul in g o n Fed Ex’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l an d Wai’s m ot io n fo r li qu id at edda m ag es . This was do ne in anOm

ni bu s Ord er s om e n in e m on th s l at er. Fed Ex p res erv edth e is su e by con ti nu al ly rais in g i t an d the re was no waiv er. 2. Dam ag es Turn in g t o t he m eri ts , th e jury’ s awa rdof $ 22 5,0 00 is no t s up po rte d b y th e la w or t he ev id en ce. Und er the FMLA, an y em pl oyer who in te rfer es with a n em pl oyee’s pro te ct edrig ht s u nd er the Act i s l iabl e to th e em pl oyee fo r “ da m ag es ” an d “ equi tabl e rel ie f.” 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 17 (a)(1 )(A)-( B). The FMLA d iv id es th es e rem ed ie s i nt o t wo s ub se ct io ns . Id. The fir stsubs ect io n a ll ows “ da m ag es ” fo r

“ wag es , sal ary, em

pl oym en t b en efi ts , or o th er co m pe ns at io n d en ie d o r lo st. . . .” 1629 U.S.C. § 2 61 7( a)(1 )(A)(i )(I). Th atsubs ect io n a ls o c ov ers no n- wag e m on et ary

lo ss es , in te res t, an d l iqui da te d d am ag es . 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 7( a)(1 )(A)(i )(II) -(A)(i ii ). The sec on d s ub se ct io n p ro vi de s fo r “ equi tabl e rel ie f as m ay be ap pr op ria te , in cl ud in g e m

pl oym en t, re in st at em en t, an d p ro m ot io n.” 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 7( a)(1 )(B) . An awa rdof f

ro ntpa y is no t i nc lu de d i n t he enum erat edda m ag es un de r th e fir stsubs ect io n. 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 17 (a)( 1) (A). Non ethe le ss , a co urt m ay awardfro nt pa y as aform of e qu it ab le rel ie f whe re rei ns ta te m en t i s n otfeas ib le . U.S. 4 E.E.O. C. v. W&O, Inc., 2 13 F.3d60 0, 6 18 -1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (de ci de d i n t he co nt ex t o f th e Pre gn an cy Dis cri m in at io n Act , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e (k )). Thu s, an awardof f

ro ntpay “ is de riv edso le ly from

th e st atut ory

pro vi si on pe rm it ti ng th e co urt t o award‘ su ch equi tabl e rel ie f as m ay be ap pr op ria te .’ ” Trax le r v. Mu lt no m ah Cn ty., 59 6 F .3d10 07 , 10 12 (9th C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot in g 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 17 (a)( 1) (B)) . Here, an y awardof d am ag es by the jury rel at in g t o fr on t p ay was e rro r be cau se th e jury ins tru ct io ns in th is cas e ex pl ic it ly lim it edth e jury’ s au th or it y to as se ss m en t o f da m ag es in th e p as t (up t o t he da te of t he ve rd ic t). Inin stru ct in g t he jury, th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t i f th e jury were to fin d l os t p ay or b en efi ts by a Be causeof the re lative dea rth of ca se law in our c ircuit rele vant to front pay as an 4 alternative to reinstatement unde r the F MLA, we he rein c ite case s decide d under othe r employ ment discrimination statutes releva nt to the FMLA. 17pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, Wai co ul d re co ve r da m ag es forth e “ ne t p ay or be ne fit s s ho wn b y

th e ev id en ce t o h av e b een lo stfro m th e ti m e o f im

pl em en ta ti on of [Fed Ex’s] em

pl oym en t d eci si on whi ch vi ol at edth e FMLA u nt il th e d at e o f [the ] ve rd ic t.” Su ch a li m it at io n i s u ne qu iv oc al ly a referen ce t o p as t l os t wag es an d be ne fit s. Th e jury’ s v erd ic t, h owe ve r, award edfro ntpa y . Acco rd in gl y , th e jury’ s 5 ve rd ic t o f $2 25 ,00 0 i n d am ag es is co nt rary to t he co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns an d the law an d m us t b e v acat ed . Fu rth erm or e, th e jury’ s awa rdof $ 22 5,0 00 is ag ai ns t t he cle ar wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce. The re ar e two co ns ti tu en t p art s t o aba ckpa y award . 29 U.S.C. § 26 17 (a)( 1) (A)(i )(I). Th e fi rs t i s d et erm in edby the di ffer en ce b etweenth e actua l wag es earn edan d t he wage s the in di vi du al wou ldha ve earn edbu t fo r th e de fen da nt ’s vi ol at io n. Ak ou ri v . Fla . Dep’t o f Tran sp ., 40 8 F .3d13 38 , 13 43 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (de ci de d i n t he co nt ex t o f Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0 e t s eq .). The s eco ndis th e rec ov ery of he al th -in su ran ce co ve rag e an d o th er fri ng e b en efi ts . Mun oz v. Ocea ns id e Res orts , In c., 22 3 F .3d13 40 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (d eci de d i n t he co nt ex t o f th e Age

We rec ognize that the jury did not differe ntiate the ty pe of da mag es in its awar d. 5 Howeve r, to justify

the awa rd, Wai conce des that the jury awa rded f ront pay beca use the amount the jury awa rded va stly

exceeds the f

igur es submitted into evidence ba sed upon bac k pay alone. 18Dis cri m in at io n i n Em pl oym en t Act(ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 6 21 et s eq ., andth e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act, Fl a. St at . Ch. 7 60 ). As t o t he fir stpa rt o f th e cal cu la ti on , W ai tes ti fie d tha t h er ea rn in gs at Fed Ex fr om

Jan ua ry to Ju ly 200 6 wer e b as edup on anan nu al sal ary of $3 6,2 65 , an d t ha t h er ea rn in gs at C arn iv al fro m Aug us t 2 00 6 t o Dec em

be r 20 06 were b as ed on anan nu al sal ary of

be twee n $ 11 ,00 0 a nd$1 3,0 00 . W ai ’s sal ary atFed Ex l edto a m on th ly paym en t o f $3 ,02 2 p er m on th , whi ch th e jury cou ldha ve award edto he r fo r th e Ju ly-to -Au gu st20 06 pe rio d tha t s he was o utof wo rk . Duri ng th e fi ve m on th s t ha t Wai wo rk edat C arn iv al , th e jury cou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t s he m ad e $9 17 m on th ly bas edup on W ai ’s tes ti m on y th atsh e m ad e $ 11 ,00 0 annua ll y . 6 Ther efo re, the da m ag es am ou ntforth e fi ve m on th s atCarn iv al co ul d h av e equa le d $ 10 ,52 5. Add it io na ll y , W ai tes ti fie d t ha t s he work edat t he res taur an t fo r 7 th ree- an d- a-h al f y ears an d e arn ed$2 7,0 00 pe r y ear, wh ic h i s $ 9,2 65 les s p er y ear th anhe r pr io r sa la ry

at F ed Ex. The da m ag es am ou ntforth e ti m e sh e worke d a t th e res taur an t equa ls $3 2,4 28 . Thu s, the jury co ul d h av e rea so nabl y fou ndth atth e ev id en ce s up po rte d a n a wardof d am ag es in th e fo rm of p as t l os t wag es for We arrive at this number by dividing Wai’s annua l income of $11,000 by twelve 6 months. We arrive at this number by subtractingthe amount of money Wai made at Carniva l for 7 five months ($917 multipli ed by 5) fr om the amount of money Wai would have ea

rned at FedE x for f ive months ($3,022 multipl ied by 5). 19$4 5,9 75 , th e to ta l o f $3 ,02 2 (t he m on th W ai was o utof wo rk ), $1 0,5 25 , and

$3 2,4 28 . 8 As t o t he sec on d p artof a ny award f orba ckpa y , th e ev id en ce re ga rd in g fri ng e b en efi ts was l im it ed . W ai tes ti fie d t ha t s he ha d aret ire m en t an d 4 01 (k ) pl anat F ed Ex, as well as h eal th in su ran ce. Howe ve r, W ai di d n otpro vi de any te st im on y rel at in g t o t he va lu e o f he r ret ire m en t o r 40 1( k) pl an s. Ra th er, s he on ly te st ifi edth at , when sh e withd rew fu nd s fr om he r 40 1( k) pl an , $5 ,00 0 t o $ 6,0 00 rem ai ne d. Su ch tes ti m on y is in su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to re as on ab ly con cl ud e th e va lu e o f W ai ’s ret ire m en t an d p en si on pl an s. Fu rth er, d oc um en ts rel at in g t o Wai’s pe ns io n c al cu la ti on were n otsubm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e attri al . W itho uta ba si s i n ev id en ce, an y

jury awardforW ai ’s ret ire m en t o r 40 1( k) be ne fit s wo ul d b e p ur e sp ecu la ti on an d m

us t fa il . Si m il arl y , W ai als o fa il edto pro vi de an y ev id en ce o f th e v al ue of h er h eal th in su ran ce atFed Ex. In st ead , sh e o nl y tes ti fie d tha t h er week ly prem iu m s fo r he al th in su ran ce atFed Ex an d t he res taur an t wer e $ 30 pe r weekan d $ 44 pe r week , We note that Wai’s counsel used these same figures a nd claimed that she was e ntitled 8 to approxim ately

$50,000 in past losses. Furthe rmore, w e find that F edEx’s argument that Wai was not entitled to bac k pay beca use she a lleg edly

ear ned more income af

ter he r termination from F edEx is wit hout merit. Wai testified to her income leve l after her te rmination from F edEx, and the jury

was fr ee to a ccept that testimony . Reeve s v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (“ Credibility deter minations, the weighing of the evidenc e, and the draw ing of leg itimate infere nces f

rom the fa cts arejury

functions, not those of a judg e.”) (quotation omitted). 20res pe ct iv el y . This am ou nt s t o adi ffer en ce o f $7 28 annu al ly. Becaus e Wai 9 worke d a t the res taur an t fo r th ree- an d- a-h al f y ears , sh e h adto pa y anad di ti on al $2 ,54 8 fo r he al thin su ran ce. Thi s amoun t i s o nl y a sm al l p erce nt ag e o f he r to ta l reco ve ry . 1 0 Thu s, i n c on si de rin g t he to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce, the re i s n o b as is wha ts oe ve r fo r anawardof $ 22 5,0 00 . The ev id en ce s up po rti ng pa stlo ss es li m it ed su ch to be twee n $ 45 ,00 0 a nd$5 0,0 00 . 3. Liqui da te d Dam ag es The FMLA d eal s wi thdam ag es in sp eci fic sec ti on s. 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 17 (a)( 1) (A)-(B ). Sect io n 2 61 7 i s b ro ke n i nt o t wo s ub se ct io ns . Id. Subs ect io n (A)(i )-(i i) d eal s wi th pa stlo ss es an d t he in te res t t he reo n. 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 17 (a)( 1) (A)(i )-(i i). Subs ect io n (A) (ii i) d eal s wi th li qu id at eddam ag es equa l t o th e su m of the am ou ntde sc rib edin claus e (i ) an d (i i) i n t he ev en t t ha t t he em pl oyer fai ls to est ab li sh go odfai th . 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 7( a)(1 )(A)(i ii ). Sub se ct io n (B) p ro vi de s fo r equi tabl e rel ie f. Thu s, i t i s cl ear tha t l iqui da te d d am ag e award s are t o b e b as edup on pa stlo ss es an d t he in te res t o n s uc h a n a m ou nt . This number re sults from the $14 differ ence over thecourse of 52 we eks in a year . 9 A re view of the rec ord indicate s that Wai also presented e videncethat she sustained 1 0 losses relatingto her he alth and pension be nefits bec ause she had an outstandinghealth bill for $1,000 and had to pa

y a 35% tax when she withdrew f unds from her

401(k) plan. 21Co ns eque nt ly, itis cle ar tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin it s ap pr oa ch to

li qu id at edda m ag es . Whi le we affi rm th e fi nd in g tha t Fe dEx fai le d t o p ro ve to th e sa ti sf act io n o f th e co urt tha t i ts vi ol at io n was in go odfai th , th ere i s n o l eg al ba si s fo r th e awardof $ 23 6,0 30 .36 as l iqui da te d d am ag es . As di sc us se d e arl ie r, pa st lo ss es un de r th e ev id en ce p res en te d c ou ldno t ex ceed$4 5,0 00 to $5 0,0 00 . The st atut e li m it s l iqui da te d d am ag es to th e am ou ntaward edforpa stlo ss es an d the in te res t t he reo n. 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 17 (a)( 1) (A)(i ii ). Thu s, we m

us t v acat e th e awardof l iqui da te d d am ag es . 4. Equi tabl e Rel ie f As n ot edab ov e, in ad di ti on to dam ag es , th e FMLA p ro vi de s fo r “ equi tabl e rel ie f as m ay

be ap pr op ria te , in cl ud in g e m pl oym en t, re in st at em en t, an d pr om ot io n.” 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 7( a)(1 )(B) . Und er the FMLA, fro ntpa y is an equi tabl e rem edy . U.S. E. E.O.C., 21 3 F .3dat 6 18 -1 9. Ho wev er, b efo re awar di ng fro ntpay , th e co urt m

us t fi rs t co ns id er wh ethe r rei ns ta te m en t i s v iabl e. Id .; Po ll ardv. E.I. duPo ntde Nem ou rs & Co ., 53 2 U.S. 8 43 , 84 6 (2 00 1) (ho ld in g, i n th e co nt ex t o f a Tit le VII cas e, th at“ [i]n c as es in whi ch rei ns ta te m en t i s n otvi ab le . . . cou rts ha ve ord eredfro ntpa y as asubs ti tu te forrei ns ta te m en t” ). Ther efo re, un le ss th e co urt fi nd s t ha t re in st at em en t i s i m pr act ic ab le , “ we pr es um e th at rei ns ta te m en t i s t he ap pr op ria te rem edy .” U.S. E.E .O.C., 21 3 F .3dat 6 19 . 22Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r rei ns ta te m en t i s fe as ib le , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t co ns id er fa ct or s s uc h a s t he av ai labi li ty of th e p os it io n a ndth e im pa ct rei ns ta te m en t wo ul d h av e o n t he em pl oyee-em

pl oyer rel at io ns hi p. Id . See al so Trax le r, 59 6 F .3dat 1 01 2 (c it at io n o m it te d) . Circ um st an ces forth e co urt t o co ns id er wh enrev ie win g t he em pl oyee-em

pl oyer rel at io ns hi p i nc lu de whet he r

“ di sc or d andan ta go ni sm

be twee n t he pa rti es wou ldren de r rei ns ta te m en t in effe ct iv e as a m ak e-wh ol e rem edy , th e d efen da nt ’s m an ag em en t [h ad ] in ti m id at edor t hr eat en edth e p la in ti ff, o r th e te rm in at io n h adha rm edth e pl ai nt iff’s em ot io na l wel l-b ei ng .” U.S. E.E .O.C., 21 3 F .3dat 6 19 (al te rat io n i n or ig in al ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Onl y aft er the co urt co ns id ers th es e fac to rs m ay itawardfro ntpa y

in li euof r ei ns ta te m en t. Add it io na ll y , th e co urt m us t “ care fu ll y

art ic ul at e it s re as on s fo r award in g fr on t p ay rathe r th anrei ns ta te m en t.” Fa rle y v. Nat io nwi de Mu t. In s. Co ., 19 7 F .3d13 22 , 13 39 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (d eci de d i n t he co nt ex t o f th e ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 6 21 et se q., an d t he Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act , 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 01 et s eq .). The reco rdin th is cas e is to ta ll y si le ntas t o a ny con si de rat io n o f rei ns ta te m en t. Wai ha d re qu es te d s uc h i n h er co m pl ai ntwhen sh e so ug ht

“ ap pr op ria te rel ie f in cl ud in g re in st at em en t . . . .” (R.1 a t 1 1) . The Om ni bu s Ord er of th e d is tri ctco urt m ak es no refe ren ce t o re in st at em en t i n s pi te of o urpre ced en t 23th atsu ch is th e rem edy th atsh ou ldbe co ns id eredin th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. W it h t he si ze o f Fed Ex, an d i ts worl dwi de op erat io ns , itis ha rdto im ag e an y im pe di m en ts to rei ns ta te m en t. At am in im um , th e d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o c on si de r th e av ai labi li ty of W ai ’s form er p os it io n o r an ot he r si m il ar p os it io n a ndth e o ve ral l rel at io ns hi p b etweenW ai an d F ed Ex. See U.S. E.E .O.C, 21 3 F .3dat 6 19 . VI. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e jury’ s fi nd in g o f a v io la ti on of t he FMLA an d we a ffi rm

th e co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Fe dEx di d n otpro ve th atth e v io la ti on was m ad e in go odfai th . W e v acat e al l o f th e award s o f da m ag es by the jury an d t he di st ric t co urt an d re m an d t he m at te r fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s op in io n. 1 1 AFFIRMED I N PART AND REVERSED I N PART.

We note the possibilit y

that past losses could be ha ndled by way of a pr oper r emittitur, 1 1 which wa s reque sted by

Fe dEx . Any

other a ppropriate relief

is a matter f

or the district cour

t as outlined here in. 24