SMS Attorneys Obtain Favorable Ruling on Appeal
Shuman McCuskey Slicer PLLC attorneys, J. Robert Russell and David L.T. Butler, obtained a favorable ruling from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals that resulted in a reversal of a jury’s verdict awarding damages for an alleged violation of The Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) against an employer.
Prior to Mr. Russell and Mr. Butler’s retention, the jury found in favor of the employee on his claims for violation of the FMLA Notice provision and the common law tort of outrage, awarding the employee $3,520.00 in lost wages; $881.22 in lost benefits; $50,000 for emotional damages; $75,000 for annoyance; $50,000 for inconvenience; and $150,000 in punitive damages, for a total jury award of $329,401.22.
As a result of motions practice following the retention of Shuman McCuskey Slicer PLLC after this verdict, the trial court granted a new trial to the employer on the employee’s tort of outrage claim, for which the employee had previously been awarded $175,000 in damages. Following this decision, the employee dismissed that claim, with prejudice.
On behalf of the employer, Mr. Russell and Mr. Butler successfully argued on appeal that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the FMLA claim because the employee failed to prove he was prejudiced by the alleged technical violation. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the jury’s verdict, setting aside the judgment, and establishing the following point of law in the process:
To prevail on a claim that an employer unlawfully interfered with an employee’s rights under The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., the employee must prove that (1) he or she was eligible for FMLA benefits, (2) the employee was covered by the FMLA, (3) the employee was entitled to leave under the FMLA, (4) he or she provided notice of the intention to take leave, and (5) the employer denied the employee FMLA benefits to which he or she was entitled. The employee must also prove that he or she was prejudiced by the employer’s violation of the statute.
For an in-depth discussion of the arguments presented, follow the link. Fairmont Tool, Inc. v. Norvel Louis Opyoke, Case No. 20-1042 (courtswv.gov)