Breneisen v. Motorola, Inc.
656 F.3d 701
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- This is an appeal from the Seventh Circuit challenging district court rulings on two FMLA claims against Motorola, Inc.
- Breneisen worked for Motorola from 1994–2003 and took multiple FMLA leaves beginning in January 2001, with a return in September 2001 followed by a third leave in February 2002 and termination in June 2003.
- Lineweaver contended she was denied tuition reimbursement as retaliation for FMLA leave; Motorola tendered $3,840 to her representing full damages, but no costs or fees.
- On remand, Breneisen narrowed his claims to discriminatory/retaliatory conduct between September 4, 2001 and February 5, 2002, seeking back pay, medical costs, lost benefits, and front pay.
- The district court granted in limine relief excluding medical causation evidence, and held no back/front pay under the FMLA for periods beyond exhausted leave.
- The court also held Lineweaver moot after Motorola’s tender, denying costs and attorney’s fees, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FMLA permits back/front pay after leave exhaustion | Breneisen argues FMLA allows damages during periods not eligible for further leave owing to exacerbation. | Motorola contends the FMLA does not authorize recovery when employee is unable to work after exhaustion of leave. | Exacerbation theory invalid; no back/front pay once FMLA protections have expired. |
| Whether exacerbation by employer conduct is a valid FMLA claim | Breneisen asserts harassment exacerbated his condition, leading to non-work and damages within FMLA scope. | Motorola asserts the cause of medical condition is irrelevant under the FMLA and the conduct occurred after leave. | Exacerbation theory rejected; FMLA does not support relief for later exacerbation. |
| Whether Lineweaver's fees create a live controversy after tender | Lineweaver claims attorney’s fees remain at issue because not included in tender. | Tender extinguishes the dispute; costs/fees are ancillary to merits and not a live controversy. | Case mooted; tendering full damages precludes further fee recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.2006) (causation not addressed by FMLA; exacerbation theory rejected)
- Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir.1994) (mootness when defendant pays full demand)
- Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (S. Ct.2001) (catalyst theory rejected; need judicial imprimatur for fee awards)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (U.S.1989) (fees must attach to merits; not created by tender alone)
- Walker v. United Parcel Service, 240 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir.2001) (statutory interpretation of FMLA; de novo review of law)