Opinion ID: 61297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: floyd’s fmla claims

Text: Floyd produced no evidence to show that he had suffered any loss of income or incurred costs as a result of Home Depot’s denial of his breaks– the alleged FMLA interference claim. Thus, the court did not err when it concluded that there was no remedy available to Floyd as a result of Home Depot’s conduct and summary judgment on his FMLA interference claim was appropriate. See Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274, 1284 (11th Cir. 1999). In his response brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Floyd did not respond to Home Depot’s argument for summary judgement. Instead, Floyd states that he was not arguing that his termination was retaliation under the FMLA. Accordingly, the district court properly found that Floyd had abandoned his retaliation termination claim. See Resolution Trust, 43 F.3d at 599.