Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Jun 6, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent unpublished federal appeals court decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

6th Cir.: Employee failed to show prima facie case of retaliation. A funeral services assistant who has a congenital heart defect and requires supplemental oxygen received an accommodation to store her oxygen tank at work. Her employment status changed to an on-call basis due to operational needs and coworker complaints, unrelated to her health condition. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in September 2021 and was terminated in May 2022 after a prolonged period of no contact, during which she had changed her phone number without notifying her employer. The employer’s decision to terminate her was made before personnel became aware of her EEOC charge. The funeral services assistant sued her former employer, alleging discrimination against her due to her disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliation against her for requesting accommodations and filing an EEOC charge. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding no evidence of discrimination, failure to accommodate, or retaliation. On appeal, the former employee only challenged the district court’s ruling that she failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision (Withers v. The Nashville Historic Cemetery Association, LLC, No. 24-5460 (6th Cir. May 21, 2025, unpublished)).

9th Cir.: Trial court erred in reducing fringe benefit rate, applying discount rate post-verdict. In a case involving claims of FMLA interference and retaliation, after a jury verdict in her favor against her former employer and its founder, the district court limited the employee’s relief “to partial backpay, liquidated damages, simple interest, and reduced attorney’s fees and costs,” and “denied reinstatement, front pay, and other equitable relief.” On appeal, the Ninth Circuit identified errors in the district court’s calculations, specifically the court’s rounding down the fringe benefit rate from 13.2 percent to 13 percent, and applying a 1.5 percent discount rate to past-due wages. The appellate court also remanded the issue of attorney fees for reconsideration in light of the recalculated damages. The dissent argued that the district court acted within its discretion regarding the fringe benefit rate. The case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings (Rightsell v. Concentric Healthcare Solutions LLC, No. 24-2796 (9th Cir. May 28, 2025, unpublished)).

11th Cir.: Manager was denied promotion because of behavior, performance, not discrimination. A watershed manager for the City of Atlanta was offered a promotion to watershed director, but declined the position. Another employee was promoted to the watershed director position and later to commissioner. The manager subsequently received a reprimand, which was later rescinded, and faced demotion following an incident involving a lack of fluoride for the plant. The manager filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and was subsequently demoted for the fluoride incident, and not hired for a director position. She alleged constructive discharge, and sued the city alleging sex discrimination under Title VII, and retaliation under Title VII and the FMLA. She alleged that her demotion and failure to secure two subsequent director positions were acts of discrimination and retaliation. The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that the actions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons. The district court found evidence of pretext and granted the motion. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, emphasizing that the manager failed to provide sufficient evidence challenging the city’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for demoting her—she “was insubordinate,” “lacked accountability and professionalism,” and “had persistent communication deficiencies” (Lockett v. City of Atlanta, No. 24-11797 (11th Cir. May 23, 2025, unpublished)).

11th Cir.: Evidence did not support damages award for FMLA interference. A logistics company terminated an employee shortly after he returned from back surgery and requested accommodations for his leg pain, leading him to file a lawsuit alleging violations under the ADA, FMLA, and ADEA. A jury found in favor of the employee on his ADA claims and FMLA interference claim, awarding $3,248,000 in damages. The trial court reduced the jury’s award to $1,193,382.71, which included $200,000 for the FMLA interference claim. The logistics company appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict and the damages awarded. Upon review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed except as to the FMLA interference claim. The appeals court found insufficient evidence to support the damages award for FMLA interference, as the employee “presented no evidence of lost compensation or actual monetary losses, let alone any evidence supporting the amount of the award.” Consequently, the appellate court vacated the FMLA interference award and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the district court’s rulings on all other issues (McClinton v. Capstone Logistics LLC, No. 24-11261 (11th Cir. May 19, 2025, unpublished)).

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination SexDiscrimination RemediesDamages AttorneysFees Discharge Retaliation PublicEmployees StateLawClaims Procedure