743 F.Supp.3d 1341
D. Utah2024Background
- Jody King sued her former employer, IC Group, Inc. (ICG), raising six claims including one under the FMLA for failure to provide required notice.
- The court previously granted summary judgment for ICG on all but King’s FMLA lack-of-notice claim, which was set for trial.
- ICG moved to alter or amend that partial judgment, disputing the court’s earlier finding of a factual dispute over unpaid vacation (the alleged monetary loss from the FMLA violation).
- Both parties had inconsistencies in how much vacation pay King received or was owed; King claimed two weeks, ICG said only one week, but evidence showed $1,826.10 covered two weeks.
- The court ultimately found the record demonstrated no actual monetary loss by King, as she had already received payment equivalent to two weeks of vacation.
- The court granted ICG’s motion under Rule 54(b), dismissed the remaining claim with prejudice, and closed the case to prevent unnecessary use of resources and manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King suffered actual monetary loss due to lack of FMLA notice | King lost opportunity to use paid vacation | King had no vacation left; if owed, already paid | No actual monetary loss; claim dismissed |
| Appropriate procedural rule for reconsideration | N/A | N/A | Rule 54(b) applies, not Rule 59(e) |
| Manifest injustice if claim proceeds to trial | N/A | Claim should not go to trial with no damages | Trial would be manifestly unjust; claim ended |
| Treatment of inconsistent evidence on vacation pay | Claimed two weeks owed and unpaid | Paid one week, possibly two weeks | Record shows payment for full amount claimed |
Key Cases Cited
- Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (sets standard for motions to reconsider under Rule 59(e)).
- Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1991) (motions for reconsideration appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances).
- Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2005) (clarifies when Rule 54(b) applies to motions for reconsideration).
- Anderson v. Deere & Co., 852 F.2d 1244 (10th Cir. 1988) (discusses district court discretion to revise interlocutory orders).