Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—W.D. Ark.: Public community college secures dismissal of former employee’s surviving FMLA restoration claim, (Aug 7, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The employee lost no pay or benefits after a reassignment, her voluntary resignation foreclosed her claim for front pay, and speculative job-search losses could not establish prejudice under the FMLA.

A public community college obtained summary judgment on an employee’s surviving FMLA entitlement claim, even though a factual dispute existed over whether it restored her to an equivalent position after medical leave. A federal district court in Arkansas found that the employee could not recover damages because the reassignment caused no loss of pay or benefits. She also could not obtain front pay, declaratory relief, or any other equitable remedy capable of sustaining the claim (McKenzie v. National Park College, No. 6:24-cv-6096 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 4, 2026)).

Reduced responsibilities. The college operates a public community college in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The employee worked as a veteran-services coordinator and academic advisor.

On January 10, 2024, she requested FMLA leave. The college approved leave covering January 8 through March 4. When she returned on March 5, college officials informed her that she would no longer perform the veteran services portion of her position and would be limited to academic advising responsibilities. The change did not reduce her pay or benefits.

The employee submitted two weeks’ notice of resignation on March 25, identifying April 8 as her intended final day. The college accepted the resignation immediately and did not allow her to work through the notice period, although it paid her through March 31.

She sued the college, alleging that it violated the FMLA by failing to restore her to an equivalent position and discriminating against her for taking protected leave. She sought more than $75,000, liquidated damages, front pay, declaratory relief, and other appropriate relief.

Earlier ruling. The college initially sought summary judgment on both claims. The court rejected the discrimination claim, finding that the employee could not establish a prima facie case or show that the reduction in responsibilities constructively discharged her. A reassignment that caused no loss of pay or benefits was not, standing alone, so objectively intolerable that it forced her to resign.

However, the court allowed the FMLA entitlement claim to proceed. The record created a factual dispute over whether the employee returned to a position involving substantially similar duties and responsibilities and requiring substantially equivalent skill, effort, responsibility, and authority. The college then filed a supplemental summary-judgment motion addressing the relief available on the surviving claim. Although the college had not raised that issue in its original motion, the court considered it because resolving the question could eliminate the need for a trial.

Prejudice required. The FMLA permits recovery of wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation lost because of a violation. If no compensation was lost, an employee may recover actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of the violation. The statute also authorizes appropriate equitable relief, including reinstatement and promotion.

Citing Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002), the court explained that establishing an FMLA violation is only a threshold requirement. The statute provides no relief unless the violation prejudiced the employee.

Similarly, Hasenwinkel v. Mosaic, 809 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 2015), required evidence of a tangible loss actually incurred and directly caused by the employer’s FMLA violation. The possibility that the college failed to restore the employee to an equivalent position, therefore, could not, by itself, sustain the claim.

No recoverable damages. The employee acknowledged that the reassignment did not reduce her pay or benefits. She nevertheless argued that she lost $712.58 in gross pay because the college did not allow her to work through April 8, her intended resignation date. A jury, she contended, could find that the college immediately accepted her resignation because she no longer performed her veteran services duties.

The court rejected that theory. It had already been determined that the employee voluntarily resigned and was not constructively discharged. Consequently, the earnings she lost after resigning could not reasonably be attributed to the alleged failure to restore her to an equivalent position.

Even if a voluntary resignation could support FMLA damages, the employee presented no evidence connecting the college’s immediate acceptance of her resignation to the reduction in her duties. Her lost pay, therefore, was not sustained “by reason of” or “as a direct result of” the alleged FMLA violation.

The employee also asserted that the reduction in responsibilities impaired her ability to obtain another position and lowered her earning capacity. But she offered no evidence that the reassignment caused any prospective employer not to hire her. The court found that this speculation did not satisfy the FMLA’s requirement that damages be measured by actual monetary losses.

Front pay unavailable. As to the employee’s request for front pay, this too failed. Front pay serves as the monetary equivalent of reinstatement and compensates an unlawfully discharged employee when reinstatement is impractical. Because the employee voluntarily resigned and could not establish constructive discharge, there was no unlawful termination for front pay to remedy.

The court also rejected her request for a declaration that the college violated her FMLA restoration rights. She identified no Eighth Circuit authority recognizing a standalone declaratory judgment as appropriate equitable relief under the FMLA. The proposed declaration would neither change her employment circumstances nor require the college to take corrective action.

Relying on Brandt v. City of Cedar Falls, 37 F.4th 470 (8th Cir. 2022), the court explained that proof of the substantive elements of an FMLA violation cannot sustain a claim without damages or an entitlement to injunctive relief. A declaration of a technical violation, therefore, could not supply the required prejudice.

No reinstatement request. Although the complaint requested “other relief,” the court declined to treat that language as a request for every potentially available equitable remedy. The employee’s pretrial disclosure sought monetary damages, liquidated damages, front pay, interest, attorney fees, and costs, but did not request reinstatement.

Nor did her response to the supplemental motion affirmatively state that she wanted to return to the combined veteran-services and academic-advisor position. Merely referring to reinstatement as a remedy did not constitute a request for it. The court also rejected her suggestion that a jury should consider possible equitable relief because the court, rather than a jury, determines such remedies.

Because the employee could establish neither recoverable damages nor entitlement to an equitable remedy, her surviving FMLA restoration claim necessarily failed. The court granted the college’s supplemental summary-judgment motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

The case is No. 6:24-cv-6096.

Judge: Hickey, S.

Attorneys: Christopher Burks (Punchwork) for Kenita McKenzie. Carl F Cooper, III, Office of Arkansas Attorney General, for National Park College.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discrimination PublicEmployees RemediesDamages ArkansasNews