2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-26-2002

Barcola v. Interim Health Care

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 01-1993

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Barcola v. Interim Health Care" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 211.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/211
 

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 

 Nos. 01-1993 & 01-1994 

 ___________ 

 

 MARISSA BARCOLA 

 

 v. 

INTERIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., INTERIM HOME HEALTHCARE INC., 

 INTERIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES OF N.E. PA., INC., 

 

 Appellants/Cross-Appellee

 ___________ 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

 

 District Court Judge: The Honorable James M. Munley. 

 (D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-1363) 

 ___________ 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

 March 1, 2002 

 

 Before: ROTH, FUENTES, and KATZ, Circuit Judges 

 (Opinion Filed: March 26, 2002) 

 ________________________ 

 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ________________________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge: 

 Following a jury verdict determining that, in terminating plaintiff’s employment, 

defendant had not violated the Civil Rights Act but had violated the FMLA, the District 

Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Thereafter, the parties filed various motions 

attacking the jury’s verdict, requesting an amendment of the judgment, asking for a new 

trial, and disputing the proper allocation of compensable fees accrued. The parties now 

appeal the District Court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, its order 

amending the judgment, and its denial of counsel fees. We will affirm this opinion in its 

entirety. 

 The facts and procedural history of this case are fairly straightforward. The 

plaintiff/Appellee in this case, Marissa Barcola ("Barcola") originally brought suit against 

her employer, Interim Health Care Services, Inc. ("Interim"), and the firms found to be 

its successors, Interim Home HealthCare, Inc. and Interim HealthCare Services of N.E. 

PA.. In her suit, Barcola alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination and Civil Rights Act of 1991; 

the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 951, et seq.; and the Family and 

Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ("FMLA"). 

 In September, 1995, Barcola, who was employed by Interim, learned that she was 

pregnant, and in January, 1996, she worked out an arrangement with her employers 

whereby she would take a twelve-week leave after the birth of her child. In March 1996, 

however, after experiencing complications with her pregnancy, Barcola was ordered to 
bed rest and took a medical leave at her doctor’s urging. Barcola gave birth in May and 

was planning to return to work in August when, in July 1996, she learned that she would 

be fired from her job. 

 Pursuant to the FMLA, an employee is entitled to take a leave of absence of up to 

twelve weeks during any one year period for a pregnancy, and the employer must then 

reinstate the employee in the same or a reasonably comparable position. See 29 U.S.C. 

2614(a)(1)(A) and (B). When confronted with allegations that it had violated the FMLA, 

Interim claimed that Barcola was not an employee at the time; that Barcola took more 

than the twelve weeks that she was allotted; and that it had offered Barcola a comparable 

position at the same salary, but she refused it. After a jury trial on December 6 and 9, 

1999, the jury returned a verdict saying that Barcola had proven a violation of the FMLA, 

but that the defendant had prevailed on the other counts. Judgment was ultimately 

awarded to Barcola in the amount of $75,057. Thereafter, Interim filed a motion for 

judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") or a new trial. Barcola, for her part, filed a motion 

to amend the judgment to include the jury’s award of front pay, which the District Court 

had stricken. Both sides filed motions for attorney’s fees. 

 In a written opinion, the District Court found Interim’s JMOL Motion and Motion 

for a New Trial to be without merit. It also found that it had made a clear error of law 

when it struck the jury award for front pay, and reinstated front pay damages, while 

declining to add additional liquidated damages. As for the attorney’s fees motions, the 

District Court found that since Barcola had prevailed on her FMLA claim, but not on her 

civil rights claims, and since the amounts requested by each respective side were close to 

identical, no attorney’s fees would be awarded, and each side would bear its own fees and 

costs. 

 Interim now appeals the District Court’s sustaining of the FMLA claim and the 

reinstatement of front pay as part of Barcola’s award. Barcola cross-appeals on the issue 

of the fees. The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and we have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. 

We will affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s well-reasoned 

opinion. 

 The District Court did not, as Appellants maintain, commit an error of law when it 

denied their JMOL Motion and their Motion for a New Trial. The jury found that 

Barcola’s pregnancy and childbirth were not determinative factors in her discharge. This 

does not lead to the inexorable conclusion that the jury was thus precluded from finding, 

as it did, that an FMLA violation had nonetheless taken place. We similarly reject 

Appellants’ claim that there was insufficient evidence on the record for the jury to have 

found successor liability in the cases of Interim Home HealthCare, Inc. and Interim 

HealthCare Services of N.E. PA.. 

 Moreover, the District Court clearly did not abuse its discretion when it 

determined that any compensable costs incurred by Interim were properly offset by those 

incurred by Barcola. Finally, we agree that the District Court committed no error of law 

when it denied Appellants’ request for the court to reform one of the jury’s verdict 

questions. 

 We will thus AFFIRM the opinion of the District Court. 

 

 

_____________________________ 

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: 

Kindly file the foregoing Opinion. 

 /s/ Julio M. Fuentes 

 Circuit Judg