Lovely-Coley v. District of Columbia
191 F. Supp. 3d 20
D.D.C.2016Background
- Cynthia Lovely-Coley, a D.C. Metropolitan Police Department detective, sought FMLA leave three times in 2010 to care for her daughter with cancer.
- First application (May 25, 2010) was initially approved by HR but rescinded after a supervisor said it was not routed through chain-of-command; plaintiff alleges supervisor rejected it for "insufficient manpower."
- Second July 2010 intermittent FMLA request was apparently denied or otherwise not clearly processed.
- Third application (Aug. 18, 2010) was approved internally but plaintiff was told it was denied; it was ultimately approved around Oct. 1, 2010. Between May 25 and Oct. 1, 2010, Lovely-Coley used 112 hours of sick/annual leave she claims she would have taken as FMLA.
- After complaining to the department EEO in September 2010, she received two low performance reviews in 2010–2011 that were later amended on appeal; she contends the initial reviews harmed her promotion prospects.
- Lovely-Coley sued the District of Columbia claiming FMLA interference and retaliation, seeking monetary recovery for used leave and lost promotion compensation; the District moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant interfered with FMLA rights | Lovely-Coley says denial/delay and communications deterred her from taking FMLA, forcing use of 112 hours of paid leave | District contends it allowed leave when needed and disputes prejudice | Genuine dispute of material fact exists; summary judgment denied on interference claim |
| Whether defendant retaliated for protected activity | Lovely-Coley says EEO complaint led to adverse performance reviews that harmed promotion prospects | District notes reviews were later upgraded and denies compensable harm | Jury could find prejudice from lowered promotion prospects; summary judgment denied on retaliation claim |
| Whether plaintiff suffered compensable prejudice under FMLA | Lovely-Coley seeks monetary value of leave and lost promotion compensation | District concedes issue is whether plaintiff suffered compensable harm and argues none exists | Court finds disputed facts on prejudice (loss of paid leave and promotion opportunities) preclude summary judgment |
| Appropriate remedies available under FMLA | Lovely-Coley seeks monetary damages for leave and lost earnings from promotion; also equitable relief | District argues remedies are limited and contests recoverable losses | Court recognizes FMLA permits actual monetary losses and equitable relief (restoration, promotion); factual disputes remain for jury determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Nev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) (FMLA creates private right of action for interference and retaliation)
- McFadden v. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 611 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (plaintiff can succeed on FMLA interference without showing leave was actually denied)
- Gordon v. U.S. Capitol Police, 778 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir.) (diminished prospects for promotion and pay can constitute prejudice)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and credibility inferences)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant's burden on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must show genuine factual dispute)
- Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir.) (materiality and genuine dispute principles)