Opinion
Civil Action 21-2167
05-23-2023
ANDREA KLEMKA, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH NETWORK LABORATORIES L.P., t/a HNL LAB MEDICINE, Defendant.
ORDER
EDWARD G. SMITH, JUDGE
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2023, after considering the plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), to alter or amended judgment under Rule 59(e), and/or for a new trial under Rule 59(a) (Doc. No. 82) and the defendant's response in opposition (Doc. No. 83); and after considering the defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and/or for a new trial under Rule 59(a) (Doc. No. 84) and the plaintiff's response in opposition (Doc. No. 88); and after hearing oral argument on the motions; and for the reasons set forth in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 82) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as the court will vacate the judgment entered in favor of the defendant and grant a new trial limited to the issue of damages. The remainder of the motion is DENIED;
2. The defendant's motion (Doc. No. 84) is DENIED;
3. The court VACATES the judgment entered in favor of the defendant on October 14, 2022 (Doc. No. 79);
4. The court STRIKES from its consideration the jury's answer to Question 4 of the
Verdict Slip (Doc. No. 78) insofar as it applies to any damages under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) other than liquidated damages;
The jury's answer to Question 4 will continue to advise the court on the plaintiff's entitlement to any liquidated damages under the FMLA.
5. The court ORDERS a new trial in this matter limited to the issue of damages;
6. The court GRANTS the parties permission to file an interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); and
When an order is “not otherwise appealable,” district judges have the power to permit an interlocutory appeal provided that “such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Here, the court finds these criteria met. The question of whether the defendant should be able to use its reasonable, honest, good faith belief about the plaintiff's outside employment as an affirmative defense in an FMLA interference case is a question for which “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Moreover, the answer to the question materially affects the ultimate outcome of this matter. Accordingly, the court finds it proper to permit the parties to file an interlocutory appeal should they so choose. The parties must file any such appeal “within ten days after the entry of [this] order.” Id.
7. The court will hold a telephone conference on Thursday, May 25, 2023, at 11:30 a.m. to discuss how the parties wish to proceed in this matter. Counsel shall call 1-866-434-5269 and use access code 3623011# to enter the conference call.