Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
396 U.S. App. D.C. 170
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Breeden sued Novartis for FMLA interference and retaliation after a 2005 realignment following her 2005 maternity leave.
- Novartis realigned Breeden’s accounts to create a Midwest territory, moving away from Hopkins/University of Maryland to smaller accounts; Breeden claimed this reduced status and opportunities.
- Breeden returned from maternity leave in 2005 to the same title and pay but with a different, smaller account portfolio and increased income later.
- District court granted summary judgment on interference and JMOL on retaliation; Breeden appealed, and Novartis cross-appealed on mixed-motive instructions (remained conditional).
- The DC Circuit affirmed in full, rejecting Breeden’s interference claim and granting JMOL in favor of Novartis on retaliation; we did not resolve the mixed-motive cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interference: was Breeden restored to an equivalent position? | Breeden’s post-2005 position was not equivalent in status and duties. | Post-realignment had de minimis intangible differences and remained equivalent. | Yes, equivalent; no FMLA interference shown. |
| Retaliation: did the 2005 realignment proximately cause the 2008 termination? | There was a continuous causal chain from 2005 realignment to 2008 termination. | intervening changes (new head, outside consultant, territory rules) broke the causal chain. | No proximate causation; district court JMOL affirmed for Novartis. |
| Equitable relief request: whether Breeden was entitled to equitable remedies given lack of monetary damages | Equitable relief follows from proven retaliation. | No FMLA violation proven, so no equitable relief. | forfeited and alternatively rejected; no equitable relief awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Maryland, 266 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2001) (FMLA interference context; de minimis intangible aspects excluded from equivalency analysis)
- Smith v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 453 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2006) (equivalence includes same pay, title, and duties; intangible changes ignored)
- Mitchell v. Dutchmen Mfg., 389 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2004) (equivalence when duties changed but pay/benefits remained similar)
- Csicsmann v. Sallada, 211 Fed.Appx. 163 (4th Cir. 2006) (equivalence despite changes in prestige; de minimis factors excluded)
- Lampley v. IMS Mgmt. Servs., LLC., F.3d (11th Cir. 2011) (positions equivalent when title, pay, and benefits unchanged)
- Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Division, 429 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 2005) (retaliatory firing discussion; hypothetical remedies context)