Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01211/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ICM Mortgage Corporation
Appellant
Elizabeth S. Lemons
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

FILED 

Unitm Statll Court of Appco.ls Tent.'t Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 2 2 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

ELIZABETH S. LEMONS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ICM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware 

Corp., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk . 

) No. 90-1211 

) (D.C. No. 88-C-332) 

) ( D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant ICM Mortgage Corporation appeals from the district 

court's judgment in favor of plaintiff Elizabeth s. Lemons 

following a jury trial on her age discrimination claims. By 

special verdict, the jury unanimously found that 1) Lemons was 

constructively discharged from her position with ICM, 2) age was a 

determining factor in her discharge, and 3) her discharge was 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-1211 Document: 010110132141 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 1 
• 

willful. Rec. vol. I, doc. 4. The district court awarded Lemons 

back pay, liquidated damages, front pay, and attorney's fees. 

On appeal, ICM raises three issues. First, it claims the 

district court erred in denying ICM's motion for judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence in support of 

constructive discharge, age discrimination, and willfulness, was 

insufficient. Second, it claims error in the district court's 

award of front pay in lieu of reinstatement. Third, it asserts 

that Lemons waived reinstatement and, accordingly, tolled any 

front pay award. Our jurisdiction arises from 28 u.s.c. S 1291: 

we affirm. 

I 

We may reverse the trial court's ruling on ICM's motion for 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if, after construing the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most 

favorable to Lemons, the nonmoving party, we conclude that the 

evidence points but one way, in favor of ICM. See Transpower 

Constructors v. Grand River Dam Auth., 905 F.2d 1413, 1416 (10th 

Cir. 1990). "[W]e must affirm if evidence was before the jury 

upon which it could properly find against the movant." Cooper v. 

Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 836 F.2d 1544, 1547 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Following our review of the record on appeal, we hold that there 

was sufficient evidence presented to support the jury's findings 

that Lemons was constructively discharged, that age was a 

determining factor in her discharge, and that ICM's conduct, 

constituting discharge, was willful. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1211 Document: 010110132141 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 2 
"A finding of constructive discharge is supported by evidence 

that an employee has resigned, rather than waiting to be fired, 

because of unreasonably harsh conditions that have been applied to 

him in a discriminatory fashion." Spulak v. K Mart Corp., 894 

F.2d 1150, 1154 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Derr v. Gulf Oil Corp., 

796 F.2d 340, 344 (10th Cir. 1986). To support a finding of age 

discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or 

ADEA, 29 u.s.c. §§ 621-634, a jury must have before it evidence 

showing that age "made a difference" in the discharge. Cooper, 

836 F.2d at 1547. Under the ADEA, an employer may be charged with 

double or liquidated damages if found to have violated the act 

"willfully." Id. at 1548. 

Lemons began her work for ICM in 1982 as an executive 

secretary. A 1984 reorganization within ICM resulted in a change 

of position, duties, and workload for Lemons. Lemons testified at 

trial that she had inquired about other positions in the company 

in order to return to a position more like her original job. Her 

inquiries were ignored. When she asked why she was not being 

interviewed for these positions and noted that the positions were 

being filled with younger, less-qualified people, ICM's Human 

Resources vice president could not answer her question. Lemons 

testified that, in 1987, her supervisor suggested she retire. 

There was also evidence that Lemons was not performing her 

post-reorganization job adequately. Ultimately, she was told that 

her work was not satisfactory, and that she had two weeks to 

improve radically, or she should consider retiring. Lemons 

testified that the workload was increasing, that she had asked for 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1211 Document: 010110132141 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 3 
help in various ways, which requests were either ignored or 

refused, that coworkers' offers of help were rejected by her 

superiors, and that she was given work with what she considered 

impossible deadlines. She offered evidence of instances in which 

she was treated differently from other employees, and testified 

that her supervisors ignored her overtures to discuss her workload 

and various criticisms of her work. We conclude that this 

evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings. 1 See 

Spulak, 894 F.2d at 1155. The jury was entitled to believe this 

evidence even in the face of evidence of Lemons' poor performance. 

See Krause v. Dresser Indus .• Inc., 910 F.2d 674, 677 (10th Cir. 

1990). 

II 

ICM contends that front pay is inappropriate and, even if 

appropriate, that Lemons waived any post-trial damages. First, 

ICM claims that the district court erred in awarding front pay. 

Reinstatement is the preferred remedy for an ADEA violation. EEOC 

v. Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 763 F.2d 1166, 1172 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946 (1985). Front pay may be 

awarded, however, when reinstatement is inappropriate. Id. at 

1172-73; see also Anderson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 861 F.2d 

631, 638 (10th Cir. 1988)(noting various circumstances in which 

1 On the issue of willfulness, we note that the district court, 

without objection from either party, instructed the jury that "[a] 

violation is willful if the employer knew or showed reckless 

disregard for whether its conduct was prohibited under the ADEA." 

On appeal, neither party challenges this language as an incorrect 

statement of law. We believe the record supports the jury's 

finding of willfuless on this instruction. But see Cooper, 836 

F.2d at 1551. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-1211 Document: 010110132141 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 4 
, 

reinstatement may be inappropriate). 

The district court based its ruling on three grounds: 

1) Lemons' move to California to live with her daughter, 2) the 

jury's finding of constructive discharge, and 3) the jury's 

finding of willfulness. Rec. vol. I, doc. 8 at 3. This award of 

equitable relief under the ADEA is entrusted to the trial court's 

discretion. Accordingly, we may reverse only if the award is 

clearly erroneous. Bingman v. Natkin & Co., F.2d __ , Nos. 

89-1114, 89-1122, slip op. at 12 (10th Cir. June 28, 1991). In 

light of the jury's finding that ICM's constructive discharge of 

Lemons was willful, we conclude the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in awarding front pay. 

Second, ICM contends that Lemons waived any front pay 

damages. The jury announced its verdict for Lemons on September 

27, 1989. The next day, ICM tendered an allegedly unconditional 

offer of reinstatement to Lemons. Lemons moved for a judgment 

granting front pay and ICM responded, raising the defense of 

waiver for the first time. 2 Lemons rejected the offer. 3 ICM 

contends that, under the waiver rule announced in Ford Motor 

Company v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 241 (1982), Lemons' rejection 

waived her claim to front pay. 

"[A]bsent special circumstances, the rejection of an 

2 Waiver is an affirmative defense, and must be raised in the 

pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); see Gallegos v. Stokes, 593 F.2d 

372, 375 (10th Cir. 1979). Here, because the factual basis for 

the waiver claim arose after trial, ICM properly raised it in 

response to Lemons' motion. 

3 ICM characterizes Lemons' response 

does not contend otherwise. 

5 

as a rejection; Lemons 

Appellate Case: 90-1211 Document: 010110132141 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 5 
• 

employer's unconditional job offer ends the accrual of potential 

[damages]." Ford, 458 U.S. at 241 (Title VII case); see also 

Giandonato v. Sybron Corp., 804 F.2d 120, 124 (10th Cir. 

1986)(ADEA case). Only an unreasonable rejection of a 

reinstatement offer will toll a plaintiff's damages. See 

Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198, 1203 (7th Cir. 

1989); Fiedler v. Indianhead Truck Line, Inc., 670 F.2d 806, 808 

(8th Cir. 1982). To determine whether waiver has occurred, the 

district court should consider the facts surrounding the offer of 

reinstatement and the plaintiff's refusal. See Taylor v. Teletype 

Corp., 648 F.2d 1129, 1139 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 969 

(1981). This court has noted that personal reasons, standing 

alone, cannot be a basis for a reasonable rejection. 

804 F.2d at 124. 

Giandonato, 

The district court, ruling on both Lemons' motion for front 

pay and ICM's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, 

summarized the parties' arguments regarding front pay, including 

ICM's waiver defense, and ruled that front pay was appropriate. 

Rec. vol. I, doc. 8 at 3. Reading the district court's order, we 

conclude that the court's ruling on front pay rejected ICM's 

waiver defense as a matter of law, and implicitly found Lemons' 

rejection to be reasonable. Cf. Lewis Grocer Co. v. Holloway, 874 

F.2d 1008, 1012 (5th Cir. 1989)(implicit in decision to toll back 

pay was finding that offer was unconditional). That finding is 

supported by evidence in the record of ICM's willful, constructive 

discharge of Lemons. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-1211 Document: 010110132141 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 6 
I 

- Finally, Lemons moves for attorney's fees incurred in 

defending against ICM's appeal. We believe an award of attorney's 

fees is appropriate in this case. See Cooper, 836 F.2d at 1557 

(appellate court may, in its discretion, award appellate fees). 

On remand, the district court is instructed to assess the amount 

of attorney's fees to be awarded Lemons. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-1211 Document: 010110132141 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 7