Tina Wallace v. FedEx Corporation, 764 F.3d 571

Background

Tina Wallace, a long‑time FedEx paralegal, experienced severe health issues in summer 2007 and obtained doctor's notes recommending medical leave; FedEx provided unmarked FMLA forms and asked her verbally to return medical certification within 15 days.
Wallace left the forms with her doctor (who completed certification and later extended leave) but did not return them to FedEx; FedEx terminated her after she failed to report for two consecutive workdays following the expiration of her then‑documented leave.
Wallace sued under the FMLA for interference, seeking back pay, front pay, and liquidated damages; a jury found liability and awarded $173,000 in back pay.
The magistrate judge denied most post‑trial motions but reduced the jury’s back‑pay award to $90,788 by remittitur and denied liquidated damages and front pay; Wallace appealed and FedEx cross‑appealed.
The Sixth Circuit limited review to the March 24, 2011 order (could not revisit an earlier motions‑panel dismissal), affirmed denial of FedEx’s JMOL motions, and reversed the remittitur — directing entry of the full $173,000 judgment for Wallace.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction/timeliness of appeals	Wallace argued prior rulings dismissal was erroneous and sought rehearing	FedEx argued some post‑judgment motions were untimely, so certain appeals were jurisdictionally barred	Court held it could only review the March 24, 2011 order because a prior motions‑panel decision dismissing parts of the appeal stood (no timely rehearing)
Whether Wallace gave sufficient notice to invoke FMLA leave	Wallace contended she provided doctor’s notes and told management she needed medical leave; FedEx had actual notice and provided FMLA forms	FedEx argued Wallace never returned certification and thus did not provide adequate notice of continued FMLA leave	Court affirmed jury verdict that Wallace gave adequate notice (doctor’s notes + employer’s request for certification made a reasonable juror conclude she sought FMLA leave)
Whether FedEx’s failure to give written consequences of not returning certification (29 C.F.R. §825.305) precluded enforcement of certification requirement	Wallace argued FedEx did not provide the required written individualized notice of consequences and thus could not rely on her failure to return certification to deny FMLA	FedEx argued it gave notice (forms, communications), §825.305 is arbitrary and cannot be applied, and termination was for independent attendance violations	Court held a reasonable jury could find FedEx failed to give required written notice, §825.305 is a valid regulation (not arbitrary), FedEx’s reason was intertwined with the FMLA failure, and found prejudice — affirmed denial of JMOL
Remittitur / damages	Wallace argued the magistrate improperly re‑weighed evidence and failed to offer remittitur option of new trial	FedEx argued the award exceeded proof and magistrate properly reduced award to reflect reasonable period of lost earnings	Court held magistrate granted remittitur (Rule 59) but abused discretion by re‑weighing credibility; remittitur without offering a new trial was procedural error — reversed and ordered judgment for full $173,000

Key Cases Cited

Edgar v. JAC Prods., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.) (elements of FMLA interference claim)
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (U.S.) (limits on regulatory provisions under FMLA)
Cavin v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 346 F.3d 713 (6th Cir.) (notice standard for invoking FMLA)
Arban v. West Publ’g Co., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir.) (when an employer has an independent legitimate reason for discharge)
National Ecological Foundation v. Alexander, 496 F.3d 466 (6th Cir.) (tolling/timeliness principles for post‑judgment motions)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S.) (jurisdictional nature of appellate timing rules)
Farber v. Massillon Bd. of Educ., 917 F.2d 1391 (6th Cir.) (standards and procedure for remittitur)