# Doreen Ricco v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 27, 2004 · 377 F.3d 599

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497226

## Case

- **Full name:** Doreen RICCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 27, 2004
- **Citations:** 377 F.3d 599; 9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1455; 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,747; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15425; 2004 WL 1660281
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Merritt
- **Judges:** Merritt, Moore, Duggan
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497226

## Opinion text

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The defendant-employer in this case discharged plaintiff wrongfully, preventing her continued work, according to a now-final, arbitration award, and thereby prevented her from qualifying for benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act. I concur in the Court’s opinion and simply add the idea that a contrary decision would contravene fundamental general principles of restitution and equitable remedies of long standing by allowing the employer to profit from its own infringement of the plaintiffs right to the statutory benefits derived from her own labor.
The remedies provided by the Family Medical Leave Act and the Fair Labor Standard Act are make-whole, equitable remedies, as the Court’s opinion suggests. The Restatement of Restitution in its introductory note sets out the underlying principle:
The principles expressed in this Chapter represent not only a large body of contemporary, “positive” law but also a view of justice traceable to Roman law and beyond. The central idea is the conjunction of unjust enrichment on the one side and loss of grievance on the other. Rules of liability in restitution depend in part on the wrongful acquisition of gain and in part on harm or loss wrongfully imposed. In some cases the fact that a person has acquired a gain by wrongdoing is the principal reason for requiring him to make restitution.
The first section of the Restatement then provides:
§ 1. The General Principle: Unjust Enrichment
A person who receives a benefit by reason of an infringement of another person’s interest, or of loss suffered by the other, owes restitution to him in the manner and amount necessary to prevent unjust enrichment.
American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law 2d, Tent. Draft 1, pp. 7-8 (April 5, 1983). See also Lightly v. Qouston, 127 Eng. Rep. 774 (C.P.1808) in which Lord Mansfield applied the restitution concept to the appropriation of the right of an employee of his labor, upholding an action in the form of assumpsit for work and labor wrongly prevented by the defendant. See Palmer, Law of Restitution § 2.1, n. 5 (1978), discussing the Lightly case in a modern context. This same fundamental principle of restitution should be applied in this case where the employer wrongfully prevented the labor of the employee thereby through its action denying the employee the benefit of family medical leave. To leave the status quo in place would unjustly enrich the employer at the expense of the employee.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497226. Public record. Not legal advice.