Watkins v. J & S Oil

Case Date: 12/30/1998
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 98-1002

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________


No. 98-1002

DAVID WATKINS,
Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

J&S OIL COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

No. 98-1003

DAVID WATKINS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

J&S OIL COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Wellford, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

_____________________

Joseph J. Hahn, with whom Kate S. Debevoise, Glenn Israel and
Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson were on brief, for J&S Oil
Company, Inc.
Cynthia L. Amara and New England Legal Foundation on brief for
the Maine Chamber and Business Alliance and the New England Legal
Foundation, amici curiae.
Francis M. Jackson, with whom Jackson & MacNichol was on
brief, for David Watkins.


____________________
December 30, 1998

____________________ WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge. Plaintiff David Watkins
was employed as a gas station manager for defendant J&S Oil Co.,
Inc. ("J&S"). In August of 1994, he suffered a heart attack and
subsequently had open heart surgery. After he had been home on
leave for about two weeks recuperating from surgery, J&S called
Watkins, asked him whether he intended to return to work, and
informed him that he had been replaced in his position as station
manager. After Watkins had completed the leave, claimed under the
Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C.  2601, et seq.,
he did not return to work for J&S in any capacity. Watkins sued
J&S pursuant to the FMLA and also the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.  12101, et seq., as well as under state
law for infliction of emotional distress. The district court
granted J&S's motion for summary judgment on both the ADA and the
state law claims, but denied the motion with respect to Watkins's
FMLA claim. The FMLA claim was tried to a jury, which found in
favor of Watkins. J&S now appeals the district court's denial of
its motion for summary judgment and its motion to vacate that
judgment. Watkins appeals the district court's granting of J&S's
motion for summary judgment on the ADA and state law claims.
At all pertinent times, J&S operated three gas stations
in Maine. J&S hired Watkins in 1992 as a gas attendant at its
Farmingdale station, although Watkins had informed J&S that he had
previously experienced a heart attack. In August of 1993, J&S
promoted Watkins to station manager. During July of 1994, however,
Watkins had another heart attack which caused him to be out of work
for about five weeks. Despite the second heart attack, he returned
to work with no restrictions. On September 17, 1994, Watkins
suffered still another heart attack and subsequently underwent
surgery for his condition.
On October 3, 1994, while Watkins was on leave
recuperating from surgery, the Human Resources Officer for J&S,
Wade Look, called Watkins regarding whether and when Watkins
intended to return to work. Watkins testified as follows about
that conversation (in part):
Q. Okay. So he asked you, are you
planning to return to J&S Oil. What did
you say to him?

WATKINS: Do I still have a position as
store manager.

Q. Okay. And what was his response?

WATKINS: No, you don't.

Q. Okay. Then what.

WATKINS: He said, you have been replaced.

Q. Okay. As store manager?

WATKINS: Yes, sir.

Q. All right. So still you have the
question hanging, do you plan to return to
J&S. What was your answer to that?

WATKINS: I asked him again if my job as
store manager was available.

Q. Okay. And he said?

WATKINS: No.

Q. So what did you say?

WATKINS: I asked him what he expected me
to do at this point in time as far as --
as work, and he said that in order to
return that he was not going to accept a
doctor's note, that they would only speak
to the doctor personally, and that would
be the only way they would let me return.

At the time of that conversation, Watkins did not, in fact, know
when he would physically be able to return to work.
Later in October, Watkins was examined by his doctor, but
he could not recall what the doctor had told him regarding his
ability to return to work. About a month after the third attack,
Look again called Watkins to ask how he was feeling and whether he
intended to return to J&S. Watkins asked again whether his
position as store manager was available, and Look indicated that it
was not, and Watkins testified as to the following conversation:
Q. Did you ask him what jobs there were
available for you at J&S?

WATKINS: No.

Q. All right. Did he tell you what jobs
were available to you at J&S?

WATKINS: He mentioned that there would be
an office job that I could bid on but was
not a guarantee that I would get the job.

Q. And what was that job?

WATKINS: I have no idea.

Q. Did that interest you at all?

WATKINS: Yes.

Q. So did you ask him what the job was?

WATKINS: No.

Q. Why not?

WATKINS: Because he wasn't sure what the
position exactly was. There was no job
description, according to him, at that
particular point in time.

Q. So tell me what you asked him and what
he told you about that job. . . .

WATKINS: That they were expanding and
that there would be a job available in the
office and I would be able to bid on it.

Q. Did you ever bid on it?

WATKINS: No, sir.

Q. Is there a reason why you didn't bid
on it?

WATKINS: It never came available between
that conversation and November 7th.

Q. Did you explore that job with him at
any time?

WATKINS: No.

Q. Did you ever discuss it again other
than that two or three little sentences
you just described?

WATKINS: No, sir.

Q. Did he discuss any other jobs with
you?

WATKINS: Yes.

Q. What other jobs . . . on this
telephone call? . . .

WATKINS: He said that there was a
possibility but no guarantees that he
might be able to put me as a gas attendant
on third shift in Winslow.

Q. Okay. Did he say anything to you
about your salary?

WATKINS: I asked him was it going to be
at the same rate of pay and he said no.

Q. Okay. This was what, the Winslow job
or the office job?

WATKINS: The Winslow job.

Q. What about the office job?

WATKINS: Nothing ever was discussed
again.

On November 7, 1994, Look called Watkins a third and
final time to notify Watkins that the company would no longer pay
for his insurance because his leave had then expired, and also to
find out whether Watkins was planning to go back to work. Watkins
again asked if his store manager job was available, and Look
informed him that it was not. At that point, Watkins said, "I
think we're going to part company." Watkins's position at that
point was that he wanted the store manager position or nothing;
Watkins stated that he had decided not to accept any job other than
that of store manager. I. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CLAIM
As indicated above, the district court denied J&S's
motion for summary judgment on the FMLA claim. Also, the court
denied J&S's motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) which was made during the trial. The jury
then returned a verdict in Watkins's favor for $43,000, the
stipulated amount of damages. J&S filed a timely motion to vacate
the judgment on this verdict pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
which was also denied. On appeal, J&S claims that the district
court erred in failing to grant summary judgment on the FMLA claim
and in failing to grant its motion to vacate the final judgment.
As stated above, the district court defeated all of J&S's
attempts for a favorable decision on the FMLA claim. J&S failed to
renew its motion for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of
proof, so the denial of that motion is not properly before the
court. Simon v. Navon, 71 F.3d 9, 13 (1st Cir. 1995). Since the
case proceeded to trial, denial of the defendant's motion for
summary judgment will not be separately addressed. Lama v. Borras,
16 F.3d 473, 476 n.5 (1st Cir. 1994). We shall review the district
court's denial of the motion to vacate the judgment, following the
jury verdict, for an abuse of discretion. Simon, 71 F.3d at 13
(citing S