Lovely-Coley v. District of Columbia
255 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- Cynthia Lovely-Coley, an MPD detective, sued the District of Columbia under the FMLA for interference and retaliation based on delays in granting FMLA leave and low performance evaluations in 2010–2011.
- The Court originally denied the District’s summary judgment motion, finding genuine disputes on interference/retaliation and that compensable prejudice might exist.
- After summary judgment briefing, Lovely-Coley filed a sur-reply clarifying she sought monetary recovery for 112 hours of leave and a $35,000 lost-salary figure tied to an alleged denied Grade 1 Detective promotion.
- During settlement-related disclosures, the District identified factual assertions (no paid FMLA leave in the period; a freeze on Grade 1 Detective promotions) it had not previously argued and moved for reconsideration.
- Lovely-Coley sought leave to amend her complaint during oral argument to add allegations about lateral-transfer/promotion harm; the Court denied that motion for lack of good cause under Rule 16(b).
- The Court granted the District’s Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration, concluded the clarified facts showed no compensable prejudice under the FMLA, vacated its prior denial, and entered summary judgment for the District on both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may amend complaint after scheduling deadlines | Lovely-Coley sought leave to add allegations of denial of lateral transfer/promotion; argued request followed Court inquiry and newly disclosed defense | District argued motion was untimely, filed after years of litigation and summary judgment, and constituted dilatory tactic; Rule 16(b) good-cause not shown | Denied — plaintiff failed to show diligence or good cause under Rule 16(b) |
| Whether Court should reconsider its interlocutory summary-judgment denial | Lovely-Coley opposed reconsideration as reargument or late-raising of defenses | District sought reconsideration under Rule 54(b), presenting clarifying facts about MPD policies (no paid FMLA leave; promotional freeze) that affect available damages | Granted — Court exercised discretion; reconsideration appropriate to correct factual errors bearing on damages |
| Whether interference claim shows compensable prejudice under FMLA | Lovely-Coley: forced to use sick/annual leave; seeks restoration or monetary value of leave used | District: MPD had no separate paid FMLA bank at relevant time; leave used would have been unpaid FMLA, so no loss of compensation or compensable benefit | Summary judgment for District — no compensable monetary/equitable prejudice shown for interference claim |
| Whether retaliation claim shows compensable prejudice under FMLA | Lovely-Coley: low evaluations prevented promotion/lateral move; seeks salary increase or promotion as remedy | District: there was a freeze on Grade 1 Detective promotions; plaintiff was not a promotion candidate during the relevant period | Summary judgment for District — no compensable prejudice shown for retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovely-Coley v. District of Columbia, 191 F. Supp. 3d 20 (D.D.C. 2016) (prior interlocutory opinion denying summary judgment)
- Roseboro v. Billington, 606 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2009) (FMLA requires actual, compensable damages)
- Reed v. Buckeye Fire Equip., [citation="241 F. App'x 917"] (4th Cir. 2007) (describing prejudice element for FMLA relief)
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders granted only as justice requires)
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Rule 54(b) discretion and flexibility for interlocutory motions)
- Lurie v. Mid-Atl. Permanente Med. Grp., P.C., 589 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2008) (Rule 16(b) requires good cause for post-deadline amendments)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and evidence viewed in nonmovant's favor)
- 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 specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Greene v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 764 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1985) (standard for reconsideration: justice requires correction of errors of fact or law)