Linda K. Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that punitive and emotional distress damages are unavailable under the FMLA
• holding that plaintiff could not recover emotional distress damages under FMLA
• holding, after citing cases from five of its sister courts of appeals, that “damages for emotional distress are not allowed under the FMLA”
• observing that FMLA provides for damages “only insofar as they are the actual monetary losses of the employee[,] such as salary and benefits and certain liquidated damages”
• interpreting earlier but substantially similar version of regulation to require only statement that employee can return to work and nothing more
• stating that, although this court typically reviews a district court’s denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion, “when the district court bases such a denial on the fact that the amendment would be futile, we review the decision de novo” (internal citation omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).