Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01687/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01687-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cyril Mamola III, and Rhonda Mamola,

husband and wife, , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Group Manufacturing Services, Inc., an

Arizona Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 08-1687-PHX-GMS

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court is the verdict on Plaintiff Cy Mamola’s ADA retaliation

claim and the issue of appropriate equitable relief (back pay and front pay) on the ADA

claims for which liability is found. 

I. The Retaliation Claim

The remaining liability question for the Court is whether Defendant retaliated against

Mr. Mamola for the exercise of his rights under the ADA. Although the jury has already

determined that a motivating factor for Plaintiff’s termination was Defendant’s

discrimination based on his disability, at the same time, the Court can also find that Group

Manufacturing Services Inc. (hereafter “Group”) retaliated against Mr. Mamola for the

exercise of his rights under the ADA if Mr. Mamola has established a “causal link” between

his termination and his filing of the ADA claim with the EEOC. 

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

In light of the jury’s determination that a motivating factor for Mr. Mamola’s

termination was discrimination against him by Group due to his disability, it necessarily

rejected Group’s claim that it terminated Cy Mamola for dishonesty and for his misdating

of a company document. Group has testified that it did not fire Mr. Mamola for other

reasons. Specifically, management testified that Mr. Mamola was a good salesman with a

positive performance record. Group also testified, however, that management would get

upset when it would receive what it considered to be unwarranted complaints and/or claims

by Mr. Mamola. Group management also testified that it believed that the ADA

discrimination claim by Mr. Mamola to the EEOC was unmerited, and that it was “surprised”

by this claim. Regardless of whether there was merit to Mr. Mamola’s discrimination claim,

and the jury found that there was, Group could not terminate Mr. Mamola if the termination

was in part for filing an ADA claim with the EEOC. The Court finds that the trial testimony,

when considered in light of Mr. Mamola’s ensuing termination which was otherwise

unexplained, is sufficient to create a causal link between Mr. Mamola’s termination and his

filing of the ADA claim with the EEOC. It thus finds that the preponderance of the evidence

demonstrates that Group retaliated against Mr. Mamola for the exercise of his rights under

the ADA, and that Group is liable for Mr. Mamola’s retaliation claim in addition to his

claims for discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate.

Nevertheless, because punitive and compensatory awards are not available remedies

for ADA retaliation claims, claimants are limited to equitable relief. Alvarado v. Cajun

Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff was already entitled to

equitable relief by the jury’s finding of liability on his other ADA claims. Group’s liability

on the retaliation claim thus does not serve to increase the equitable relief to which Plaintiff

is already entitled. Plaintiff conceded as much at oral argument on this claim. 

The jury awarded Mr. Mamola compensatory damages of $125,000 and punitive

damages of $100,000 on his ADA discrimination claim. The jury further found that

Defendant did not seek to reasonably accommodate Mr. Mamola’s disability. It determined,

however, that Mr. Mamola was only entitled to nominal compensatory damages on this

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

failure, but made an additional punitive award of $50,000 on Group’s failure to reasonably

accommodate Mr. Mamola. The jury further determined that Group was not liable on Mr.

Mamola’s FMLA claim. The parties acknowledge that, pursuant to statute, the jury’s awards

of compensatory and punitive damages on the above ADA claims are collectively capped

at $50,000, in addition to any equitable back pay or front pay award to be calculated by the

Court. 42 U.S.C.§ 1981a(b)(3). It is ordered, therefore, reducing the compensatory and

punitive damages awards on Plaintiff’s ADA claims to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). 

II. Equitable Relief On the ADA Claims

When a jury finds discrimination on an employment claim, “there is a presumption

in favor of back pay awards.” Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co. Inc, 224 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th

Cir. 2000) (citing Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)). “‘Front pay

is the term used to describe damages paid as [prospective] compensation for training or

relocating to another position. An award of front pay is made in lieu of reinstatement when

the antagonism between employer and employee is so great that reinstatement is not

appropriate.’” Id. (quoting Fadhl v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 741 F.2d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.

1984), overruled on other grounds by Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)).

 Here, both parties stipulate that the antagonism is so great that a front pay award is

preferable to reinstatement. Still, front pay must be tempered and should not result in a

windfall. 

In making its equitable back pay and front pay determinations, the Court relied on the

following determinations. 

Mr. Clarke, Plaintiff’s expert, testified that based on national averages Mr. Mamola

would continue to work until he was 62. The Court finds this assumption credible, and there

was no real attempt to challenge it by Defendant’s expert, Mr. Gaintner. Further, Mr.

Mamola’s relative age and seniority with Group suggest that his age may pose some

additional challenge to him in finding, and training for, other comparable employment. 

The evidence demonstrates the dollar value of sales made by Group attributable to Mr.

Mamola’s customers in 2007. Given this dollar value amount, and the terms of Mr.

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Mamola’s compensation agreement for 2007, the Court determined what his guaranteed

salary plus commission payments would have been in 2007. 

Both parties’ experts apparently assumed that it was appropriate to add to Mr.

Mamola’s base salary, the value of benefits that would have been paid on his behalf in the

following categories: (1) 7.65% of his salary and commission as additional benefits

compensation (FICA); (2) an amount to reflect the ESOP contribution on Mr. Mamola’s

salary; 3) an amount to reflect the difference in health care benefit amounts paid on Mr.

Mamola’s behalf by Group and subsequently obtained by Mr. Mamola. 

After listening to both experts on how to appropriately calculate the value of the

ESOP benefit, the Court accepts the averaging approach adopted by Mr. Gaintner (ESOP

contribution averaged as 16.5% of annual salary) as more probably reflecting the reality of

ESOP contributions over time. It accepts this figure for both back pay and front pay analysis.

After having arrived at the sum above calculated, the Court deducted from it: 1)

amounts actually paid by Group to Mr. Mamola during 2007; 2) estimated amounts that Mr.

Mamola would not have received while in Group’s employ in 2007 for his unpaid FMLA

leave; 3) the ESOP and FICA contributions attributable to these first two amounts; 4) the

amount of salary paid to Mr. Mamola by Garry Gibby in 2007; 5) the amount of salary paid

by Precision to Mr. Mamola in 2007; 6) the amount of FICA contribution paid by Precision

on Mr. Mamola’s behalf in 2007; and 7) the value of the contribution made by Precision to

Mr. Mamola in the form of health insurance in 2007. The resulting figure was the amount

awarded adjusted slightly upward for equitable considerations of pre-judgment interest. 

Because the sales staff compensation agreements negotiated in early 2008 were

principally based on 2007 sales figures, the Court determines that Mr. Mamola’s guaranteed

salary would not have been reduced in 2008, because there was a high dollar volume of

business from his clients in 2007. Mr. Mamola would not, however, have earned any more

than his guaranteed salary amount in 2008. This is due to the drastic reduction of Comtech's

orders from Group, as well as some of the reductions by Mr. Mamola's other clients that year.

His total client sales for 2008 would not have placed him above the amount for which he

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

would have earned an additional commission, and would have, in fact, resulted in a drastic

and enduring reduction in his book of business. The principal reason for the reduction in

Comtech’s business with Group was Comtech’s decision to take a significant portion of its

sheet metal manufacturing business in-house. This decision preceded Group’s decision to

terminate Mr. Mamola, and thus is not significantly related to Mr. Mamola’s departure.

Therefore had he been employed by Group in 2008, Mr. Mamola would have received

his guaranteed minimum salary together with the attributable FICA benefit and ESOP

contribution on this salary. From this amount the Court deducts the annual salary Mr.

Mamola would have been paid had he kept his job at Precision. It further deducts the FICA

benefit on that amount. No adjustments will be made for the difference in the health care

benefit as the health care offered by Precision was apparently equivalent to the health care

offered by Group. The resulting figure is the value of the lost wages incurred by Mr.

Mamola in 2008. 

As it pertains to Mr. Mamola’s post-Group employment and Mr. Mamola’s obligation

to mitigate his damages, the Court is more persuaded by the “demonstrated capacity”

deduction for mitigation of damages made by Mr. Gaintner, than it is by the actual

employment approach taken by Mr. Clarke. The Court further notes that, after having heard

all of the evidence in this case, it is more equitable to apply the “demonstrated capacity”

mitigation deduction than any actual employment analysis. This is particularly so in light of

some testimony that would suggest that Mr. Mamola was terminated from Precision for job

performance issues and was counseled by at least one other employer immediately prior to

his termination. The Court thus applies this demonstrated capacity deduction from this point

forward for purposes of calculating both back pay and front pay.

 By 2009, Mr. Mamola's guaranteed salary, had he continued at Group, would have

likely been reduced due to the decline in business undertaken with Group by Mr. Mamola's

customers and his inability to replace those declining customers with new accounts. During

the 15 years that he was a salesman for Group, Mr. Mamola did not obtain any significant

new clients for the company. Mr. Mamola acknowledged in his testimony that he was not

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

good at generating new customers. Thus, the decline in Mr. Mamola’s book of business

would have been reflected in a decline in his guaranteed salary in 2009. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Mamola's seniority would protect him from a too-precipitous drop

in his guaranteed salary. The continuing decline in customer sales reflected by Comtech

taking much of its business in-house would have likely resulted in a gradual but persistent

reduction in his guaranteed salary for several years rather than an immediate drop to the

compensation level of Mike Havens who replaced Mr. Mamola as Group’s salesman on Mr.

Mamola’s former accounts. The Court therefore estimates that Mr. Mamola would have

received a salary guarantee of $1600 per week in 2009 and that he would not have earned a

bonus. Again to Mr. Mamola’s guaranteed salary the Court adds the FICA benefit as well

as the resulting ESOP contribution. From this amount the Court deducts the salary and FICA

adjustment resulting from Mr. Mamola’s demonstrated capacity. The Court follows this

same basic methodology for all years in which it awards back or front pay. 

By 2010, Mr. Mamola's minimal salary guarantee would have likely declined again

to $1400 and would not have been ameliorated by any ability of Mr. Mamola to replace a

declining customer base with new accounts. By 2011, Mr. Mamola's minimum salary

guarantee would have declined to $1200 per week, and he would not have earned a bonus.

By 2012, the Court believes that Mr. Mamola's minimum salary guarantee would have only

slightly declined to $1150 per week, and he would not have earned a bonus. For the years

2013-2017, however, the Court deems that Mr. Mamola’s guaranteed salary would not

further decline. 

The Court recognizes that the resulting guaranteed salary amount is still

approximately $10,000 higher annually than both Mr. Mamola’s demonstrated capacity at

Precision and the guaranteed amount that is currently being paid to Mike Havens, who is Mr.

Mamola’s replacement on all of his former Group accounts. Nevertheless, in light of the

testimony at trial, which for the most part was that Mr. Mamola was a good and serviceable

salesman for Group with considerable seniority, there is reason to believe that even in a

declining market in which Mr. Mamola does not have the talent necessary to attract new

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

clients, Mr. Mamola would have been more valuable at Group than he was at Precision.

There is further reason to believe that his additional seniority would have resulted in a higher

rate of pay than would have been paid to Mike Havens on the same customer accounts.

Finally, although the decline in guaranteed salary which the Court presumes over the course

of several years due to the loss of business in Mr. Mamola’s accounts is also designed to

account for some risk that he would not have continued his employ at Group, the

preponderance of the testimony was that Mr. Mamola was a good salesman at Group. While

the evidence suggests that he did not perform as well elsewhere, there is little testimony on

which the Court can conclude that Mr. Mamola would have been very likely to lose his job

at Group. The Court finds that under the circumstances no upward adjustment for inflation

is appropriate. 

Thus, the differential between Mr. Mamola’s salary at Group and his demonstrated

capacity, plus the incremental FICA benefit and ESOP contribution that would have resulted

from his Group salary, results in Mr. Mamola’s front pay through the year 2017, when any

equitable front pay terminates. 

As a result of factoring in additional minor adjustments designed to account for risk

assessments, discount rates, and pre-judgment interest on back pay, the Court awards Mr.

Mamola the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) in back pay and one

hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) in front pay as equitable relief. Together with the

compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury, which are capped at fifty thousand

($50,000), judgment is entered in Mr. Mamola’s favor on his ADA and retaliation claims in

the total amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, entering judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA and retaliation claims in favor of Plaintiff

and against Defendant in the amount of $500,000.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment in Defendant’s behalf and against

Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s FMLA claim. Plaintiff will, therefore, take nothing from Defendant

on his FMLA claim.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2010.

 

Case 2:08-cv-01687-GMS Document 242 Filed 11/02/10 Page 8 of 8