Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04292/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04292-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRETA L. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04292 SI

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION

IN LIMINE NO. 11

In its June 6, 2008 Order, the Court previously made a tentative ruling on defendant’s motion

to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s lost wages or offset plaintiff’s award of damages by the income she

earned from her American Airlines pension. The Court has considered the new case cited by plaintiff

regarding the collateral source rule, but need not rely on it. The Court finds that although the caselaw

in this area is not entirely clear, in this instance the retirement benefits paid to plaintiff were not paid

as compensation for defendant’s potential liability, and therefore are a collateral source and offset is

inappropriate. See McQuillan v. S. Pac. Co., 40 Cal. App. 3d 802, 808 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) (“It is clear

from the nature of the retirement system that the contributions by the State to the retirement fund were

not contributions made by it as a tortfeasor but resulted from a contractual and statutory obligation

completely outside the notions of tort liability. Rather, they fall within the ambit of the cases that hold

pension and insurance payments to be collateral sources which are not intended to benefit a tortfeasor

and which do not reduce his liability.”); Rotolo Chevrolet v. Superior Court, 105 Cal. App. 4th 242, 245

(Cal. Ct. app. 2003) (pensions “are considered to have been secured by the plaintiff’s efforts as part of

his employment contract, and the tortfeasor is entitled to no credit for them”); see also Russo v. Matson

Navigation Co., 486 F.2d 1018, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 1973). 

Case 3:05-cv-04292-SI Document 166 Filed 07/02/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendant also reminds the Court that it has not yet ruled on whether plaintiff may seek any

damages for lost wages. Defendant argues that she may not because she cannot demonstrate that she

was “ready, willing, and able” to perform her job duties because she was not designated as fit to fly by

a medical doctor. The Court disagrees. Defendant’s motion asks the Court to decide one of the ultimate

factual issues that must be decided at trial, and as such must be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04292-SI Document 166 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 2