Opinion
Civil No. 99-1593-JO
June 8, 2001
Attorney for Plaintiff :
Donald B. Potter, DONALD B. POTTER, PC Portland, OR
Attorneys for Defendants :
Agnes Sowle, Kathryn A. Short, OFFICE OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY ATTORNEYS, Portland, OR
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Raymond Price brings this action pro se against his former employer, Multnomah County, and his former supervisor, Karen Lamica. Plaintiff alleges five claims: wrongful discharge against Multnomah County; violation of the Oregon Family Leave Act ("OFLA") against Multnomah County; violation of the federal Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") against both defendants; retaliation in violation of O.R.S. 659.030(1)(f) against Multnomah County; and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against both defendants.
Plaintiff initially was represented by counsel.
In earlier proceedings, I granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in full as to plaintiff's first, second, fourth and fifth claims. I also granted defendants' motion with respect to the retaliation portion of plaintiff's FMLA claim but denied summary judgment as to the interference portion of his claim.
The case is now before me on defendants' motion for summary judgment (# 45) on the portion of plaintiff's FMLA claim that alleges that defendants "interfered with Plaintiff's requests to exercise his rights under the [FMLA]." Complaint, ¶ 17. Plaintiff has failed to file any response to the motion. After reviewing defendants' submissions and for reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
STANDARD
Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). If the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A scintilla of evidence, or evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative, does not present a genuine issue of material fact. United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge, 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989).
The substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact is material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also T.W. Elec. Service v. Pacific Elec. Contractors, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Reasonable doubts as to the existence of a material factual issue are resolved against the moving party. T.W. Elec. Service, 809 F.2d at 631. Inferences drawn from facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 630-31.
DISCUSSION
Defendants correctly state that plaintiff is not eligible for relief even if he is able to show that they interfered with his use of FMLA leave. Under the FMLA, an employer who violates section 2615 is liable to the employee:
(A) for damages equal to —
(i) the amount of —
(I) any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or
(II) in a case in which wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation have not been denied or lost to the employee, any actual monetary losses sustained by the employee as a direct result of the violation, such as the cost of providing care, up to a sum, equal to 12 weeks of wages or salary for the employee * * *.29 U.S.C. § 2617(A)(i).
The statute also provides for interest on the above amounts and for liquidated damages under certain circumstances in an amount equal to the above amounts. Finally, the statute provides for equitable relief "as may be appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and promotion." 29 U.S.C. § 2617(A)(ii-iii) and (B).
As defendants correctly note, the FMLA does not provide for compensatory or nominal damages.
In his response to defendants' Requests for Admissions, plaintiff admits that he did not take any leave without pay, he did not incur any out of pocket expenses associated with defendants' alleged failure to provide FMLA leave, and he did not make any payments for the care or transportation of his wife during her illness. These admissions foreclose plaintiff from showing entitlement to any relief, even if he were able to prove that defendants interfered with his FMLA rights. Consequently, his FMLA interference claim must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Defendants' motion for summary judgment (# 45) is granted and this action is dismissed. Any other pending motions are denied as moot.