(a) The employee has the choice of:
(1) Filing, or having another person file on his or her behalf, a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, or
(2) Filing a private lawsuit pursuant to section 107 of FMLA.
(b) If the employee files a private lawsuit, it must be filed within two years after the last action which the employee contends was in violation of the Act, or three years if the violation was willful.
(c) If an employer has violated one or more provisions of FMLA, and if justified by the facts of a particular case, an employee may receive one or more of the following: wages, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or, where no such tangible loss has occurred, such as when FMLA leave was unlawfully denied, any actual monetary loss sustained by the employee as a direct result of the violation, such as the cost of providing care, up to a sum equal to 26 weeks of wages for the employee in a case involving leave to care for a covered servicemember or 12 weeks of wages for the employee in a case involving leave for any other FMLA qualifying reason. In addition, the employee may be entitled to interest on such sum, calculated at the prevailing rate. An amount equaling the preceding sums may also be awarded as liquidated damages unless such amount is reduced by the court because the violation was in good faith and the employer had reasonable grounds for believing the employer had not violated the Act. When appropriate, the employee may also obtain appropriate equitable relief, such as employment, reinstatement and promotion. When the employer is found in violation, the employee may recover a reasonable attorney's fee, reasonable expert witness fees, and other costs of the action from the employer in addition to any judgment awarded by the court.
Notes of Decisions
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “2617; 29 C.F.R. 825.400(c). However, the employee is not entitled to any more reimbursement or benefits "than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period.”
Dotson v. Pfizer, Inc., 558 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2009).
“There is a discrepancy between the mandatory language of § 2617 and the permissive formulation of one regulation addressing FMLA remedies, which states that "the employee may be entitled to interest” on FMLA damages.”
Larison v. Home of the Innocents, 551 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
“One of the important differences between the FMLA and the ADA, at least as it pertains to this case, is that FMLA leave is not preconditioned on the employee being able to provide an estimated return date, or even an assurance that the employee will be able to return to work…”
Anusie-Howard v. Todd, 920 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D. Maryland 2013).
“§ 2617 (a)(2) (giving private right of action); 29 C.F.R. § 825.400 -.401 (describing enforcement).”
Hite v. Biomet, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Ind. 1999).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 825.400 (stating that where no such tangible loss [wages, etc.”
Johnsqn v. City of Blaine, 970 F. Supp. 2d 893 (D. Minnesota 2013).
“§' 2617(c)(l)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 825.400 (b). Regarding the City’s actions following Plaintiff’s 2009 FMLA leave, as the Court explained in its discussion of Plaintiffs disability discrimination claims, no constructive discharge occurred.”
Krohn v. Forsting, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (E.D. Mo. 1998).
“; 29 C.F.R. § 825.400 (a); Danfelt v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington Co.”
Keen v. Brown, 958 F. Supp. 70 (D. Conn. 1997).
“These regulations do not reference any means of enforcement, while the regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor implementing Title I include a subpart entitled “What Enforcement Mechanisms Does FMLA Provide?” 29 CFR § 825.400 . This provision outlines the options for…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.400(b) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.400(c) — 1 case
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co., 657 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“2617; 29 C.F.R. 825.400(c). However, the employee is not entitled to any more reimbursement or benefits "than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.