Millea v. Metro-North Railroad
658 F.3d 154
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Millea suffers from severe PTSD and began work for Metro-North in 2001; in 2005 he received 60 days of intermittent FMLA leave for 2006.
- In summer 2006 Millea had a confrontation with supervisor Earl Vaughn triggering a panic attack; he did not directly inform Vaughn of his unforeseen FMLA leave, but notified via a co-worker, and Vaughn was indirectly informed.
- Metro-North logged Millea’s absences as non-FMLA leave, opened an internal investigation, and placed a one-year Notice of Discipline in his file, which was expunged after a year if no further incidents occurred.
- As a result Millea voluntarily transferred to a lower-paying custodian job not supervised by Vaughn; Millea contended he complied with FMLA but that the internal policy was inconsistent with the FMLA.
- Millea sued Metro-North for interference (FMLA § 2615(a)(1)), retaliation (FMLA § 2615(a)(2)), and IIED; a May 2009 jury verdict favored Millea on interference, and Metro-North on retaliation and IIED; district court later denied certain JMOL and reduced attorneys’ fees.
- On appeal, Millea and Metro-North challenge (i) the interference verdict, (ii) the retaliation jury instruction, and (iii) the attorneys’ fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| JMOL on interference claim | Millea argues there was enough evidence for interference as defined by FMLA. | Metro-North contends the logged non-FMLA designation was lawful under policy. | No reversible error; district court properly denied JMOL on interference. |
| Applicability of Burlington Northern to FMLA retaliation | Millea urged Burlington Northern standard for materially adverse action should apply to FMLA retaliation. | Metro-North argued the Burlington Northern standard does not apply to FMLA. | Burlington Northern standard applies to FMLA retaliation; error in jury instruction requires new trial. |
| Prejudice from erroneous jury instruction | Erroneous instruction could have influenced the verdict on retaliation. | Any error was harmless due to lack of causation for other acts and no monetary damages. | Prejudicial error; retrial ordered on retaliation claim, with other claims affirmed. |
| Attorney's fees calculation | Lodestar calculation and fee-shifting principles should govern the award. | District court correctly tied fees to damages awarded and used proportional method. | District court erred; remand for recalculation using the lodestar method. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (establishes broad 'materially adverse' standard for retaliation claims)
- Breneisen v. Motorola, Inc., 512 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2008) (applies Burlington Northern standard to FMLA retaliation claims)
- Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006) (applies Burlington Northern standard to FMLA retaliation)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; adjustments rare and tethered to hours)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Assoc. v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (lodestar provides presumptive reasonable fee in fee-shifting awards)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1998) (fee-shifting considerations and lodestar basics)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (nominal victories and fee implications where appropriate)