Dollar v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc., 787 F. Supp. 2d 896

Dollar, a non-driver SMX employee with a long depression history, did not request or take FMLA leave; SMX fired her during a period when she was purportedly needing leave for depression.
SMX handbook defines pay continuation, paid and unpaid leave, and requires exhaustion of paid leave before unpaid FMLA leave; it also allows temporary transfers to accommodate recurring leave.
Dollar was reassigned from a driver manager in the Flatbed Division to a driver recruiter, with Nelson coordinating HR actions; she did not return after medical leaves in mid-2007.
Dollar’s June–July 2007 medical leaves were prescribed by mental health professionals, with doctors repeatedly extending time off for treatment; she was ultimately terminated July 6, 2007.
SMX never offered FMLA leave to Dollar nor informed her of FMLA rights prior to termination; Dollar later obtained a release to return to work, but was not re-employed.
Judge Bennett ultimately held the FMLA claim to be an interference claim, awarding back pay, health insurance loss, liquidated damages, and front pay, but no reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SMX interfered with Dollar’s FMLA rights by firing her while on medical leave.	Dollar contends SMX denied/blocked FMLA rights.	SMX asserts no lawful FMLA leave was requested or denied by Dollar.	Yes; SMX interfered with Dollar’s FMLA rights by denying leave on July 6, 2007.
Whether Dollar’s depression constitutes a serious health condition under the FMLA.	Dollar’s depression requires FMLA protection.	Depression alone, without inpatient treatment, may qualify if continuing treatment is shown.	Dollar’s condition qualifies as a serious health condition under continuing treatment provisions.
Eligibility of the plaintiff and employer under the FMLA.	Dollar was an eligible employee; SMX was an employer.	Dollar failed to show eligibility or SMX failure to be an employer under FMLA definitions.	Dollar is an eligible employee and SMX is an FMLA employer.
What remedies are appropriate for an FMLA interference finding.	Back pay, health benefits, liquidated damages, and front pay are warranted.	Remedies should be limited; reinstatement may be feasible but was not pursued.	Back pay, health benefits, liquidated damages, and front pay awarded; reinstatement denied as impracticable.

Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006) (two FMLA claim types; interference vs. retaliation; interference easier to prove when leave not properly denied)
Throneberry v. McGehee Desha County Hosp., 403 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2005) (FMLA leave rights and restoration upon return)
Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (continuing treatment test for serious health condition; more than three days incapacitation with treatment)
Rask v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., 509 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2007) (notice considerations under FMLA; totality of circumstances)
Spangler v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 278 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2002) (FMLA interference framework and reinstatement concepts)
Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (FMLA retaliation/interference distinction and causation)