Opinion ID: 201924
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the amount of —

Text: 50 (I) any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or 51 (II) in a case in which wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation have not been denied or lost to the employee, any actual monetary losses sustained by the employee as a direct result of the violation, such as the cost of providing care, up to a sum equal to 12 weeks of wages or salary for the employee; (ii) the interest on the amount described in clause (i) calculated at the prevailing rate; and 52 (iii) an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to the sum of the amount described in clause (i) and the interest described in clause (ii), except that if an employer who has violated section 2615 of this title proves to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission which violated section 2615 of this title was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of section 2615 of this title, such court may, in the discretion of the court, reduce the amount of the liability to the amount and interest determined under clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; and 53 (B) for such equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and promotion. 54 .... 55 (3) Fees and costs 56 The court in such an action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff, allow a reasonable attorney's fee, reasonable expert witness fees, and other costs of the action to be paid by the defendant. 57 As to his claim of interference with his substantive rights under the FMLA, Colburn was not entitled to any remedy because he admitted he could not return to work at the expiration of the leave. But that did not mean there was no actionable harm under a retaliation theory. In some situations, a successful retaliation claim will lead to independent damages. 58 Colburn's termination occurred on January 31, 2002. He admitted that he would not have been able to return to work until after his period of leave expired, and he thus would not have been entitled to reinstatement under 29 U.S.C. § 2614. Accordingly, with regard to his retaliation claim, he would not have been entitled to any compensation or benefits after the date he exhausted his FMLA leave. In theory, he nonetheless could have had a loss of salary in the period between the date of the alleged wrongful termination and the date his leave expired. Yet, because his leave was an unpaid leave, he had no lost income. Also theoretically, Colburn could have suffered damages in the form of lost value of employment benefits (say, health and dental insurance) in the period between his termination and the expiration of the unpaid leave. See 29 U.S.C. § 2611(5) (defining employment benefits). But he proffered no evidence showing that the alleged retaliatory firing resulted in such losses. 5 59 Damages, however, are not the only remedy available under the FMLA. The FMLA also provides for equitable relief, including reinstatement, see id. § 2617(a)(1)(B); thus, a hypothetical plaintiff who proved retaliation could be reinstated once he or she is able to perform all essential functions of the position, see 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a) (An employee has no greater right to reinstatement ... than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period.), even if he or she had no monetary damages. Indeed, counsel for Colburn made this very argument. 60 Further, the statute provides, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff, for reasonable attorney's fee, reasonable expert witness fees, and other costs of the action to be paid by the defendant. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3). Thus, had Colburn proven his claim of retaliation and established entitlement to some form of equitable relief, he could have been awarded attorney's fees and costs. 61 The fact that Colburn could not have returned to work before the expiration of his leave and thus cannot make out a claim for interference with his substantive rights does not necessarily preclude a retaliation claim. 6