Salvatore Ziccarelli v. Thomas Dart
No. 24-2377 (2025)
Rule of Law:
A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) can only be granted on grounds specifically advanced in the pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion, as Rule 50(a) serves to provide notice and an opportunity for the non-moving party to cure defects before the case is submitted to the jury.
Facts:
- Salvatore Ziccarelli was a correctional officer for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office since 1989.
- In 2011, Ziccarelli began using intermittent FMLA leave to manage his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with the Sheriff’s Office approving up to seven days per month and allowing him to use accumulated sick leave for his regular salary.
- In 2016, Ziccarelli's PTSD worsened, and his doctor recommended an eight-week leave for treatment.
- Around the week of September 12, 2016, Ziccarelli contacted Wylola Shinnawi, the FMLA coordinator for the Sheriff’s Office, to discuss taking extended “block leave.”
- During that telephone call, Shinnawi warned Ziccarelli "not to use any more time or you will be disciplined."
- On Monday, September 19, 2016, Ziccarelli used one additional day of FMLA leave.
- On September 20, 2016, Ziccarelli resigned from his position.
Procedural Posture:
- Salvatore Ziccarelli filed a lawsuit against the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in federal district court, alleging FMLA interference and retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff’s Office on both claims.
- Ziccarelli appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Ziccarelli I), which affirmed summary judgment on the retaliation claim but reversed and remanded for trial on the FMLA interference claim.
- On remand, the district court held pretrial conferences to discuss potential damages for the FMLA interference claim, specifically addressing whether resignation-related damages were available given the Seventh Circuit's prior ruling.
- During the jury trial, at the close of Ziccarelli’s case, counsel for the Sheriff’s Office made an oral motion for "a judgment of directed finding" without specifying the grounds. The court took the motion under advisement.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ziccarelli for $240,000.
- The Sheriff’s Office then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), a Rule 59 motion for a new trial, and a motion for remittitur.
- The district court granted the Rule 50(b) motion, concluding that Ziccarelli's use of FMLA leave after the alleged interference negated prejudice, and conditionally granted a new trial in the alternative.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) properly preserve a specific legal and factual argument for appeal when its pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion failed to articulate those grounds, even if general discussions about damages occurred pretrial?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
No, an employer's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) does not properly preserve a specific legal and factual argument when its pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion failed to articulate those grounds, even if general discussions about damages occurred pretrial. The court reviewed the district court's determination of issue preservation for abuse of discretion. The Seventh Circuit found the district court abused its discretion by concluding Ziccarelli had sufficient notice of the grounds for the Rule 50(b) motion. Rule 50(a)(2) requires that a motion for judgment as a matter of law "specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment" to allow the opposing party an opportunity to cure any defect before the case is submitted to the jury. The Sheriff's Office's oral pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion was a vague request for "a judgment of directed finding" without specifying the factual or legal bases. The specific fact relied upon by the district court to grant judgment as a matter of law—that Ziccarelli took an additional day of FMLA leave after the warning—"emerged at trial" and was not highlighted in pretrial discussions, which focused primarily on whether Ziccarelli could seek resignation-related damages under a theory of constructive discharge (which the court had previously rejected in Ziccarelli I). The court emphasized that general pretrial discussions about damages are insufficient to satisfy the specificity requirement for a Rule 50(a) motion regarding an element of liability. However, the court affirmed the district court's alternative conditional grant of a new trial, agreeing that the evidence of prejudice was insufficient given that Ziccarelli was not constructively discharged and still took FMLA leave, and his resignation was deemed a non-interference-related event. The court noted that Ziccarelli's theory regarding recovery of accrued sick leave benefits could be explored on remand.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, particularly the specificity needed for pre-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law. It highlights that general pretrial discussions, even if related to overarching legal concepts like "prejudice" or "damages," are insufficient to satisfy the rule's notice function if they do not clearly articulate the specific factual and legal bases for a later Rule 50(b) motion. This decision serves as a warning to litigators to be precise in their Rule 50(a) motions to avoid waiver of arguments on appeal, while also reaffirming the broad discretion of trial courts to grant new trials when a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, even if a JMOL motion fails procedurally.
