Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02674/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02674-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brentwood Industries
Appellee
Oscar Olivares
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2674

___________________________

Oscar Olivares

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Brentwood Industries

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana

____________

 Submitted: April 12, 2016

 Filed: May 13, 2016

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After his employment was terminated, Oscar Olivares sued Brentwood

Industries for race discrimination. A jury found that he had been terminated because

of his race and awarded him $1 in nominal damages. Olivaressought equitable relief

Appellate Case: 15-2674 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398542 
in the form of reinstatement and front pay. The district court concluded that 1

reinstatement was neither possible nor practical and that Olivares had not presented

sufficient evidence that he was entitled to front pay. Olivares appeals, and we affirm.

I. 

Oscar Olivares is a naturalized American citizen of Mexican origin. He

worked in Hope, Arkansas as a shift supervisor for Brentwood Industries

(Brentwood) which manufactures water filters for cooling towers. Brentwood

originally hired Olivares as a temporary employee in 2001 and promoted him to

second shift supervisor in 2007. Some years later in January 2013, Olivares spoke

with supervisor Frankie Powell about distributing permanent employment

applicationsto several temporary workers whomhe supervised. Powell told Olivares

not to give applicationsto any Mexican temporary worker because the plant manager

Jay Travillion did not want to employ any more Mexicans. 

On February 7, 2013 Powell observed two workerssupervised by Olivares who

were not wearing their ear plugs and safety glasses in violation of Brentwood policy. 

When Powell confronted him about this, Olivares responded that he had not seen any

violations. Nonetheless, Olivares and the two workers signed a statement admitting

the violation, still protesting that it had never actually occurred. Olivares later

admitted that he knew he could have chosen not to sign this document. Travillion

called Olivares into his office on February 11 and terminated him because of his

safety violation. After he was dismissed, Olivares applied for other supervisor

positions through the state unemployment office but was unable to find a job for

several months. Then in January 2014, he accepted a job as a forklift driver at

Klipsch, another manufacturing plant in Hope. 

The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States DistrictJudge for the Western 1

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2674 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398542 
Olivares sued Brentwood for race discrimination in violation of Title VII and

42 U.S.C. § 1988. On February 20, 2015 a unanimous jury found that Brentwood had

terminated Olivares because of his race and awarded $1 in nominal damages. 

Although Olivares had not presented damage evidence during trial, he asked the

district court for equitable relief after the verdict was entered, seeking reinstatement

or annual payments of $85,000 in front pay for 18 years. 

On June 4, 2015 the district court held a hearing to address his requests for

reinstatement and front pay. Olivarestestified that he wanted to return to Brentwood

as a supervisor and work until he retired. He also testified about the difficulty he had

encountered seeking comparable employment in Hope after his termination. The only

jobs he had been offered were nonsupervisory positions paying only $7.50 or $8.00

per hour. He explained that he needed a stable job because he wanted to bring his

wife to the United States from Mexico, and immigration officials told him that he

would have to maintain stable employment with an annual income of at least

$21,000. Travillion testified that it would be "unworkable" to rehire Olivares because

he had violated the company's trust by "allowing his employees to violate safety

rules."

The record included evidence that while Olivares was a supervisor at

Brentwood, his annual salary was over $40,000. He also had employer sponsored

health insurance, and Brentwood matched his 401(k) plan contributions up to 4% of

his annual salary. Olivares submitted two of his December 2012 Brentwood pay

stubs to support his testimony about his income there. He testified that his annual

salary at Klipsch is about $20,000, that he receives employer sponsored health

insurance, and that he has a 401(k) plan without any matching employer

contributions. He tried to submit his tax statement from 2014 and some of his older

pay stubs from Klipsch, but the court excluded them because they predated the

February 20, 2015 verdict. At the conclusion of the equitable relief hearing, the court

requested that Olivares submit additional evidence about his post verdict salary, but

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-2674 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398542 
his counsel did not supplement the record. Brentwood also did not submit any

evidence to rebut his claim for front pay. The district court denied Olivares's motion

for reinstatement and front pay, and he appeals. 

II. 

We review a district court's decision to deny equitable relief for abuse of

discretion. Sayger v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 735 F.3d 1025, 1035 (8th Cir. 2013). An

abuse of discretion occurs "if a relevant factor thatshould have been given significant

weight is not considered, if an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given

significant weight, or if a court commits a clear error of judgment in the course of

weighing proper factors." Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768, 774 (8th Cir. 2004). 

The equitable remedy of reinstatement "should be the norm" when practicable

and possible. Kucia v. Se. Ark. Cmty. Action Corp., 284 F.3d 944, 949 (8th Cir.

2002). Reinstatement may however not be possible when there are no comparable

positions available. See, e.g., Ray v. Iuka Special Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 51 F.3d

1246, 1255 (5th Cir. 1995); Duke v. Uniroyal Inc., 928 F.2d 1413, 1423 (4th Cir.

1991). Reinstatement may also not be a practical remedy if "there is such hostility

between the parties that a productive and amicable working relationship would be

impossible." Denesha v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 161 F.3d 491, 501 (8th Cir. 1998)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Normal "friction arising from the litigation

process itself" would however not be a sufficient basis for denying reinstatement. 

Dickerson v. Deluxe Check Printers, Inc., 703 F.2d 276, 281 (8th Cir. 1983). Only

"[s]ubstantial hostility, above that normally incident to litigation, is a sound basis for

denying reinstatement." United Paperworks Int'l Union v. Champion Int'l Corp., 81

F.3d 798, 805 (8th Cir. 1996).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying reinstatement to

Olivares. The thirteen comparable supervisory positions at Brentwood had already

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-2674 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398542 
been filled. See Ray, 51 F.3d at 1255. The district court also found "there were

serious trust issues between the management and Olivares" which could not be

"rebuilt." See Denesha, 161 F.3d at 501. Plant manager Travillion testified that

Olivares was untrustworthy because he had failed to enforce safety rules at the plant. 

Olivares claims that the district court erred by crediting Travillion's testimony as a

reason to deny reinstatement since the jury had rejected this justification for his

termination. "In making a front pay award, the district court is not free to reject or

contradict findings by the jury on issues that were properly submitted to the jury." 

Mathieu v. Gopher News Co., 273 F.3d 769, 778 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

marks omitted). The jury in this case made no findings as to whether Olivares had

in fact violated the safety rules or whether Travillion's trust concerns were genuine. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that

reinstatement was neither possible nor practical.

A district court may award front pay "when extraordinary circumstancesrender

reinstatement impracticable or impossible." Mathieu, 273 F.3d at 778 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Front pay is calculated to begin at the date the verdict is

entered. See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1065 (8th Cir. 2004). After a plaintiff

proves a basis for a front pay award, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the

prima facie case. See Curtis v. Elec. & Space Corp., 113 F.3d 1498, 1503 (8th Cir.

1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying front pay to Olivares

because he failed to establish a prima facie case for equitable damages. Olivares only

provided a vague estimate of his post verdict salary at Klipsch. Front pay should be

denied when there isinsufficient evidence to support it. See Reneau v. Wayne Griffin

& Sons, Inc., 945 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir. 1991).

Olivares argues that he satisfied his evidentiary burden by testifying about his

$20,000 annual salary from Klipsch, his past rate of pay, and the length of time he

expected to work at Brentwood had he not been terminated. The district court

declined to speculate about a damage award based solely on Olivares's testimony that

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-2674 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398542 
his annualsalary was $20,000. See Dollar v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc., 710 F.3d

798, 809 (8th Cir. 2013). Olivares had not submitted evidence like current Klipsch

pay stubs or other documents showing his post verdict pay. While he contends that

the district court abused its discretion by requiring him to present expert testimony

to substantiate his front pay claim, the court merely mentioned expert testimony as

one type of supporting evidence. Because the district court reasonably determined

that Olivares had failed to establish a prima facie case for front pay, the burden never

shifted to Brentwood to disprove it. See Curtis, 113 F.3d at 1503. 

Finally, Olivares argues for the first time on appeal that the district court should

have implemented a hybrid formof equitable relief—such asinterim front pay—until

a supervisor position opened at Brentwood and reinstatement was possible. Even if

Olivares had raised this argument below, the district court would not have abused its

discretion by denying such relief because Olivares had not pled a prima facie case for

front pay. Delayed reinstatement would also have been impractical since the court

found that Brentwood's management distrusted Olivares because the employees he

supervised had allegedly committed safety violations. 

For these reasons the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-2674 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Entry ID: 4398542