Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01425/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01425-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

1

 The Court also will deny Plaintiff’s request for oral argument because the Court is

thoroughly familiar with this case, having presided over a multi-day trial, and the parties

have submitted memoranda discussing t he relevant law and evidence. Oral argument will

not aid the Court in reaching a decision. See Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc.,

171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Craig Tucker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The City of Tempe, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV03-1425-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Craig Tucker has filed a Motion for Reinstatement. Doc. #44. The motion

asks the Court to order that Plaint iff be reinstated as a police officer or be given a

comparable position by Defendant City of Tempe. Defendant has filed an opposition to

the motion (Doc. #57) and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. #61). For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will deny the motion.1

 

Plaintiff did not preserve the equitable remedy of reinstatement for trial. The parties’

Proposed Final Pretrial Order, adopted by the Court as a Final Pretrial Order (Doc. #21),

listed the issues of fact and law to be resolved at trial. The only remedies listed by Plaintiff

were nominal damages, compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.

Case 2:03-cv-01425-DGC Document 62 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

See Final Pret rial Order (Doc. #21) ¶ (E)(a)(19), (20), and (21). Because Plaintiff did not

identify reinstatement as a remedy to be sought at trial, the remedy was never discussed

by the parties at any of the pretrial conferences and the Court was not informed that it

would need to consider the evidence presented at trial in the context of an equitable

reinstatement claim. Had the Court been informed that Plaintiff was seeking reinstatement

it would have sought an advisory jury verdict on this issue. 

Plaintiff asserts that he sought equitable reinstatement in the Complaint, but p arties

must p reserve their claims in the Final Pretrial Order. When the Court adopted the Final

Pretrial Order it expressly stated that the Order – not the complaint – “shall govern the

presentation of evidence and other trial issues.” Doc. #22, ¶ 4.

Even if Plaintiff had preserved the remedy, t he Court would not award it now.

Plaintiff asked the jury to award damages that would make him whole. Specifically,

Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Plaintiff the future earnings he lost as a result

of being terminated by Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that these damages

exceeded $1,000,000. The jury then responded to this question: “Has Plaintiff p roven by

a preponderance of the evidence that he should be awarded damages to compensate for

a net loss of wages and benefits and ot her damages as defined in the Court’s instruction?”

Doc. #55. The jury answered “yes” and awarded $85,000. Id. Thus, the jury concluded

that $85,000 constituted the full amount of damages incurred by Plaintiff as a result of

Defendant ’s actions, including damages for lost future wages. Given Plaintiff’s request for

lost future earnings and the jury’s conclusion that $85,000 would make Defendant whole,

the Court concludes that Defendant should not receive the additional equitable remedy of

reinstatement. 

In support of his request for reinstatement, Plaintiff cites Lutz v. Glendale Union

High School, 403 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005). Lutz merely holds, however, that

reinstatement is an equitable remedy to be considered by the Court under Title VII and the

ADA. It says nothing about Plaintiff’s having failed to preserve the remedy in the Final

Case 2:03-cv-01425-DGC Document 62 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Pret rial Order, nor does it address the fact that the jury awarded Plaintiff damages for lost

wages.

Defendant seeks attorneys’ fees for having to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. T he

Court does not conclude that Plaintiff’s motion was vexatious or frivolous, and therefore

will deny the fee request.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reinstatement (Doc. #44) is

denied.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01425-DGC Document 62 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 3