Rule 50 Specificity and the Limits of Constructive-Discharge Damages under the FMLA – Commentary on Salvatore Ziccarelli v. Thomas Dart, 7th Cir. 2025

1. Introduction

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Salvatore Ziccarelli v. Thomas Dart addresses two recurring trial-practice questions in federal civil litigation: (1) how precisely must a party state the grounds for a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, and (2) what kinds of prejudice and damages are available to an employee who alleges interference with rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Plaintiff Salvatore Ziccarelli, a long-time Cook County correctional officer managing PTSD, claims that the Sheriff’s FMLA coordinator warned him not to “use any more time or you will be disciplined.” He took one additional day of leave, resigned the next day, and sued for FMLA interference and retaliation. After a jury verdict of $240,000 for interference, the district court granted the employer’s post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion and, in the alternative, ordered a new trial. The Seventh Circuit reversed the Rule 50(b) judgment but affirmed the conditional new-trial order, remanding for further proceedings.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Rule 50 Procedural Holding: Grounds raised in a renewed Rule 50(b) motion must have been specifically articulated in the pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion. Determining whether those grounds were preserved is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Application: The employer never identified, pre-verdict, the “extra-day-of-leave” argument that ultimately underpinned the Rule 50(b) motion; therefore the district court could not enter judgment as a matter of law on that basis.
• New Trial: Although Rule 50 relief was improper, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a Rule 59 conditional new trial because the verdict arguably conflicted with the manifest weight of the evidence on prejudice.
• Substantive FMLA Guidance: (a) Constructive discharge remains an extremely high bar in interference cases; (b) plaintiffs must still prove actual prejudice traceable to the interference; and (c) the court signalled that unpaid accrued sick-leave benefits could, in principle, constitute recoverable damages.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Ziccarelli v. Dart (“Ziccarelli I”), 35 F.4th 1079 (7th Cir. 2022) – earlier appeal clarified that interference claims need not show an “actual denial” of leave but must show prejudice; also expressed skepticism that the facts could support constructive discharge.
• Thompson v. Mem’l Hosp. of Carbondale, 625 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2010) – classic formulation: Rule 50(b) can be granted only “on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion.”
• Laborers’ Pension Fund v. A & C Envtl., Inc., 301 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2002) – allowed courts to consider the whole trial record when deciding whether Rule 50(a) specificity is satisfied.
• Simon v. CESA #5, 46 F.4th 602 (7th Cir. 2022) – prejudice can exist even without monetary damages; supports declaratory/equitable relief.
• Hickey v. Protective Life Corp., 988 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2021) & Cianci v. Pettibone Corp., 152 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 1998) – plaintiffs terminated (or exited) before leave could be taken could not show compensable prejudice.
• Supreme Court authority on Rule 50 preservation: Exxon Shipping v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) and Unitherm Food Sys. v. Swift-Eckrich, 546 U.S. 394 (2006).

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review for Preservation Rulings.
   The panel filled a doctrinal gap by explicitly adopting abuse-of-discretion review when an appellate court assesses whether a district judge correctly found that Rule 50(a) grounds had been preserved. This accords with the Eighth Circuit’s approach (Olsen v. Di Mase, 24 F.4th 1197 (8th Cir. 2022)) and recognises that preservation is a context-heavy, trial-level judgment.
2. Application to the Sheriff’s Motion.
   The district court relied on trial evidence that Ziccarelli took an extra FMLA day after the contested phone call. Because that theory was never flagged in the oral “directed-finding” motion or in any pre-trial filing, the purpose of Rule 50(a) (to give the opponent a chance to cure proof defects) was defeated. The Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the JMOL.
3. Constructive-Discharge and Prejudice.
   Echoing Ziccarelli I, the panel reiterated that quitting immediately after a single vague threat is not, as a matter of law, constructive discharge. Consequently, any damages premised solely on the resignation are highly suspect. The district court’s skepticism was therefore proper ground for a new trial, even though Rule 50 relief was procedurally barred.
4. Conditional New Trial.
   Under Rule 59, the judge may set aside a verdict that is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because the jury awarded $240,000 without competent evidence of lost wages or tangible prejudice, a new trial was not an abuse of discretion. Importantly, the panel preserved the possibility that unpaid accrued sick-leave benefits – or nominal/equitable relief – could be pursued on remand.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

• Trial Strategy: Litigants must spell out all factual and legal bases of a Rule 50(a) motion, even if the judge seems unreceptive. A generic “directed verdict” request will no longer suffice in the Seventh Circuit.
• Appellate Practice: The abuse-of-discretion frame makes it harder to overturn a district judge’s determination about whether Rule 50 grounds were preserved; counsel should build a meticulous trial record.
• FMLA Litigation: (a) Constructive-discharge theories remain precarious. (b) Plaintiffs should be prepared to prove narrower, quantifiable harms—lost sick leave, lost overtime, altered schedules, or equitable relief—rather than wholesale back-pay from resignation. (c) Nominal or declaratory relief is a viable alternative when monetary loss is hard to show.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• FMLA Interference (29 U.S.C. §2615(a)(1))
  Occurs when an employer impedes an employee’s attempt to exercise FMLA rights (e.g., discouraging, delaying, or conditioning leave). Liability also requires “prejudice” – some concrete harm such as lost pay, benefits, or position.
• Constructive Discharge
  A resignation treated as a firing because working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable employee would have felt compelled to quit. The standard is “higher than a garden-variety Title VII claim” and was not satisfied here.
• Rule 50(a) vs. Rule 50(b)
  50(a) – pre-verdict motion for JMOL; must “specify” the law and facts entitling the movant to judgment.
  50(b) – post-verdict renewal; cannot introduce new grounds beyond those specified in 50(a).
• Rule 59 New Trial
  Allows the district court to set aside a verdict that is against the manifest weight of the evidence or infected by legal error. Unlike Rule 50, no pre-verdict motion is required.
• Remittitur
  A judicial reduction of an excessive jury award; plaintiff may accept the reduced amount or opt for a new trial on damages.

5. Conclusion

Ziccarelli v. Dart provides a sharp reminder that Rule 50(a) motions must be more than perfunctory incantations; they must genuinely disclose the specific factual or legal defects at issue. By choosing abuse-of-discretion review for preservation rulings, the Seventh Circuit encourages district judges to make context-sensitive calls and discourages parties from engaging in “post-verdict sandbagging.” On the substantive side, the panel tightens the leash on constructive-discharge theories within FMLA interference suits, directing plaintiffs toward demonstrable, non-speculative losses or equitable remedies. Litigators—plaintiff and defense alike—should recalibrate their pre-verdict motion practice and damage proofs accordingly.