Opinion ID: 2973099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternative Reinstatement Options

Text: Because we reverse and remand on other grounds, we need not consider Brumbalough’s argument that she was entitled to alternative reinstatement options. D. Brumbalough’s Motion to Amend the Complaint On January 23, 2004, approximately nine months after filing the original complaint, and approximately three months before trial was set to begin, Brumbalough attempted to amend her complaint to include damages for emotional distress.6 The district court denied the amendment, finding that it would be both futile and prejudicial to Camelot. 1. Futility of Amendment Whether a plaintiff is able to recover compensatory damages for emotional distress is an issue of first impression before this Court. However, several other circuits have held that the FMLA does not allow for such recovery.7 See Montgomery v. Maryland, No. 02-1998, 2003 WL 21752919, at  (4th Cir. July 30, 2003) (unpublished) (discussing emotional distress damages); Walker v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 240 F.3d 1268, 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) (same); Nero v. Indus. Molding Corp., 167 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing consequential damages); Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274, 1284 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussing emotional damages distress); Cianci v. Pettibone Corp., 152 F.3d 723, 728 (7th Cir. 1998) (finding no damage claim under the FMLA when plaintiff suffered no actual monetary losses such as wages, salary, benefits, etc.). The underlying logic to these courts’ conclusion is this: Because the FMLA specifically lists the types of damages that an employer may be liable for, and it includes damages only insofar as they are the actual monetary losses of the employee such as salary and benefits and certain liquidated damages, the FMLA does not permit recovery for emotional distress. See 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1); Walker, 240 F.3d at 1277. On appeal, Brumbalough argues that under Arban v. West Publishing Corp, 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003), an FMLA case decided by this Court, she is entitled to recover compensatory damages for mental and emotional injuries. This Court in Arban, in relevant part, stated as follows: If the employer is found to have retaliated against the employee for using FMLA leave, the employer is subject to a claim for compensatory damages and, unless the court finds the violation occurred in good faith, additional liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A). 345 F.3d at 403. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A) provides that: 6 Although the amendment makes mention of compensatory and liquidated damages in general, these were part of the original complaint. Therefore, the only claim that is new to the amended complaint is one for emotional distress damages. 7 The only circuit, among the ones that have reached this issue, that has allowed recovery of compensatory damages under the FMLA for compensation for “mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other intangible injuries” is the Eighth Circuit. See Duty v. Norton-Alcoa Proppants, 293 F.3d 481 (8th Cir. 2002). No. 04-5543 Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc. Page 11 Any employer who violates § 2615 of this title shall be liable to any eligible employee affected for damages equal to the amount of (I) any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or 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; (ii) the interest on the amount described in clause (I); and (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) when the employer acted in bad faith. The fact that the Arban court cites to § 2617 demonstrates that the words “compensatory damages” as used in Arban referred to the damages enumerated in 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A). This conclusion is consistent with the underlying logic of the cases from the other circuits disallowing damages for emotional distress under the FMLA. Therefore, we find that Brumbalough’s reliance on Arban in claiming that this Circuit allows recovery of damages for emotional distress and injuries under the FMLA is misplaced. Brumbalough also argues that she is entitled to recover damages for emotional distress because this Court has allowed such recovery for retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”), whose remedial provision Congress intended the FMLA to mirror. See Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Frizzell v. Southwest Motor Freight, 154 F.3d 641, 644 (6th Cir. 1998). We do not find Brumbalough’s argument persuasive. Retaliation damages under the FLSA are controlled by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) which provides, “any employer who violates the provisions of section 215(a)(3) of this title shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” (emphasis added). Such language is not found in the FMLA, and therefore a retaliation claim in violation of the FMLA does not warrant damages for emotional distress. For the reasons stated above, we hold that damages for emotional distress are not allowed under the FMLA and affirm the district court’s denial of Brumbalough’s motion to amend complaint. 2. Prejudice to Camelot As this Court’s holding that damages for emotional distress are not allowed under the FMLA renders the amendment to Brumbalough’s complaint futile, the Court needs not review whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that the amendment would have been prejudicial to Camelot.