2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-31-2006 

# H el le r v . Eli z a b eth F orward P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2046

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H e lle r v . El i za be th F or war d " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1030. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1030*H onor abl e W i l l i am H . Y ohn, J r . , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge fort he U ni t ed St at es

D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 05- 2046, 05- 2464

___________ P OLL Y AN N HELL ER; D A R L A M A R R A C C IN I; PENN Y N ATA LE v. ELI ZAB ETH FOR W AR D SCH OO L DI STRI CT,

A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 04- 145) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Thom as M . H ar di m an

___________ A R G U E D A PR I L 24, 2006 B E F O R E : S C IR IC A , C h ie f J u d g e , a n d N Y G A A R D , C ir c u it J u d g e s , and Y O H N , D i s t r i ctJ udge.

* ( Fi l ed M ay31, 2006)

___________2

J ohn W . Sm ar t , E s q. ( A r gued) T odd P. Pr ugar , E s q. A ndr ew s and Pr i ce 1500 A r dm or e B oul evar d, Sui t e 506 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15221

C ouns el forA ppel l ant C ol l een R. J ohns t on, E s q. ( A r gued) R ot hm an G or don 310 G r antSt r eet , 3 Fl oor rd Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 Sam uel J . C or des , E s q. O gg C or des M urphy& I gnel zi 2 4 5 F o rtP itt B o u leva rd Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222

C ouns el forA ppel l ee

___________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.

A j ur yr etur ned a ve r di cti n favorof thr ee t eac her s w ho had s ued the E liza b e th F o rw a rd S c h o o l D istric t alle g in g v io latio n s u n d e r th e A g e D isc rim in a tio n in E m pl oym entA ct , T he Equal PayA ct , and s t at e cl ai m s al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of the P e n n s y l v a n i a Hu ma n Re l a t i o n s Ac t . Th e S c h o o l Di s t r i c ta p p e a l s . W e wi l l a f f i r m.

I.3 T he School D i s t r i ct ’ s s al arys cal e and the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement b etw ee n the S ch o o l D istri ct an d the tea ch ers’ u n ion , sets d iffe ren t “st ep s” in salary dependi ng on a t eac her ’ s exper i ence , educa t i on, and t eac hi ng cert i fi cat i on ar ea. W hen t he School D i s t r i cthi r ed pl ai nt i ffs , t heyw er e al l overt he age of fi ftyy ear s ol d and they w er e al l hi r ed ats t ep 1 of the D i s t r i ct ’ s s al arys cal e. T heyal l eged thataft ert he School D i s t r i cthi r ed them as t eac her s , i thi r ed s even othert eac her s ( “compar at or s ”) , fi ve of wh o m we r e ma l e a n d a l l o f wh o m we r e y o u n g e r , wi t h s u b s t a n t i a l l yt h e s a me q u a lif ic a tio n s a s P la in tif

f s , a t h ig h e r s a la ry st e p s . A f terd isc o v e ry , the S c h o o l D istric t f iled a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied. W ith resp ec t t o the A D E A claim , the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned that“[a ] r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d ei t herdi s bel i eve the empl oy er ’ s ar t i cul at ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons orbel i eve thatan i nvi di ous di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on w as m or e l i kel yt han nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e of the empl oy er ’ s act i ons . ” W i t h r es pectt o t he E PA cl ai m , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he pl ai nt i ffs had adduc ed enough e vi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ctcoul d concl ude thata p rim a fa c ie cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on had bee n m ade. A ddi t i onal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he School D i s t r i ctfai l ed t o s ubm i ts uffi ci entevi dence t o demonstr at e thatt he s al arydi ffe r ence s w e re d u e to s o m e f

a c to r o th e r t h a n s e x . T he ca s e w entt o t r i al and, aft ert he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the School D i s t r i ct ’ s m ot i on fora di r ect ed ver di ct , a j ur yaw ar ded ver di ct s i n favorof al l t hr ee4

t eac her s . Subse quent l y , t he School D i s t r i ctr enew ed i t s m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t er o f law , w h ich w a s d e n ied . W ith re sp e c t to d a m a g e s, P lain tiff s s o u g h t in ter e st b a c k to w hen theyw er e hi r ed, l i qui dat ed and puni t i ve damages , and equi t abl e r el i ef thatgave t hem credi tfor exp eri ence o uts i de the Sc ho ol D i stri ct . T he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed these req u ests. T h e S ch o o l D istri ct t im elyap p ea led, an d all the o rde rs (fro m su m m ary ju d g m e n t th ro u g h p o s t- tr ia l d a m a g e s ) w e re c o n s o lid a te d in th is a p p e a l. II. A. T h e S c h o o l D istric t co n c e d e s th a t p lain tiff s h a v e e sta b lish e d a p rim a f a c ie cas e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on undert he A D E A . T heybel i eve, how ever , t hatt heyhave a d e q u a telyv iti a ted p lain tiff s’ p rim a f

a c ie c a se o f

a g e d isc rim in a tio n w ith a leg iti m a te n o n -discrim inato ryrea so n fo r th e sa laryd iscrep an cies, an d that the D istri ct C o u rt i ncorr ect l yr equi r ed them, att he s um m aryj udgm ents t age, t o concl us i vel ypr ove thi s nond isc rim in a to ryre a so n a s o p p o se d to m e re lyp ro f f e r it. T he School D i s t r i cti s of cour s e r i ghtt hatcl ai m s undert he A D E A fol l ow t he bur den- s hi ft i ng s equenc e s etfor t h i n McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een , 41 1 U. S. 792, 93 S. C t . 1817, 36 L . E d. 2d 668 ( 1973) , w hi ch does notr equi r e conc l us i ve pr oof of a non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on t o r ebuta pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. H ow ever , once a defe ndanthas pr offe r ed a non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on, a pl ai nt i ff w i l l s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm enti f s he5

adduce s evi dence t hatw oul d al l ow a fa ct fi ndert o di s bel i eve the pr offe r ed nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on. H er e, pl ai nt i ffs m ett hi s bur den.

I ti s t he School D i s t r i ct ’ s pr act i ce thatt eac her s ar e gene r al l yhi r ed ats t ep 1 o f th e sa lar ysc a le, re g a rd les s o f w h e th e r th e ytea c h e lem e n tar ysc h o o l o r h ig h sc h o o l. H ow ever, t he S cho ol D i stri ctargued t hat i thir ed teachers atdiffer ent s al ari es becau se “tea ch er c erti fica ti o n s in sc ienc es o r spe cial ed u ca ti o n that m an yo f th e y o u n g er teac h ers pos s es s , ” combi ned w i t h “the r el at i ve s car ci t yof thes e ce r t i fi cat i ons j us t i fi ed a hi gher s t ar t i ng s al ary . ” I ti s t rue thatt he School D i s t r i ctm ayhi r e a t eac herata s t ep hi ghert han s t ep 1. Forexampl e, i ti s perm i s s i bl e fort he School D i s t r i ctt o hi r e a t eac herata hi gher sa lar yste p w h e re th a t tea c h e r p o ss e ss e s q u a lific a tio n s f o r w h ich th e S c h o o l D istric t is es peci al l yi n need. T hus , not hi ng pr ohi bi t s t he School D i s t r i ctfr om hi r i ng a t eac herw ho pos s es s es a t eac hi ng cert i fi cat i on i n phy s i cs ata hi ghers al arys t ep bec aus e the School D i s t r i ctl acks a hi gh s chool phy s i cs t eac her , as demand m aypl aya r ol e i n t he School D is tr ic t’ s d e c is io n to h ir e a c e rt a in te a c h e r a t a h ig h e r s a la ry st e p .

T he D i s t r i ctC our t , how ever , det erm i ned thatpl ai nt i ffs had s ubm i t t ed evi dence t endi ng t o cas tdoubton t he School D i s t r i ct ’ s r eas on fori t s empl oym ent d ec isi o n s, ch ieflythat the y o u n g er teac h ers h ir ed h ad teac h ing ce rt ifi ca ti o n s tha t w ere m uch r ar er , and i n gr eat erdemand, t han thos e of the pl ai nt i ffs . T he pl ai nt i ffs offe r ed evi dence t hats chool boar d m ember s w er e unabl e t o ar t i cul at e thi s r eas on w hen depos ed and that , atl eas tw i t h r es pectt o one compar at or , M s . St ock, t he School D i s t r i ctdi d not6

fo ll o w it s o w n log ic. S ch o o l bo ard m em b er R o n ald S k ri n jori ch test ifi ed that the b o ard m ember s w er e “ba s i cal l yi gnor antt o t he fa ctof payl evel s ” and thathe w as unaw ar e of anypo l i cyof st art i ng t eache rs w i t h scarce cer t i fi cat i on s athigher payl evels . H e al so opi ned that“he di d notr eal l yknow w hya t eac herw oul d be hi r ed ata payl evel hi gher t han Level 1 and thathe w oul d have s uppor t ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tfora hi gherpayl evel beca us e ‘ i f y ou gi ve i tt o one, y ou gi ve i tt o al l . ’ ” The D i s t r i ctC our tal s o concl uded that t her e w as no evi dence w hat s oevert o s uppor tt he cl ai m t hatt he ce r t i fi cat i ons of the y o u n g e r te a c h e rs a re m o re sc a rc e th a n th o se o f th e p lain tiff

s. In lig h t o f

th is count ervai l i ng evi dence , w e thi nk i tcert ai nl yr eas onabl e thata fa ct fi ndercoul d di s bel i eve t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t ’ s a r t i c u l a t e d e x p l a n a t i o n f o rt h e h i r i n g d i s c r e p a n c i e s a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y, we wi l l a f

f i r m th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f s u mma r yj u d g me n ta s t o t h e ADEA c l a i m. B . T h e S c h o o l D istric t n e x t co n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rro n e o u sly det erm i ned thatt eac her s w i t h di ffe r entt eac hi ng cert i fi cat es coul d be cons i der ed compar at or s forpurpos es of an EPA cl ai m . B eca us e theyappea l fr om a deni al of s um m aryj udgm ent , t he School D i s t r i ctpl i es t he ar gum entt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdecl i ned t o fi nd, as a mat t erof l aw , t hatt eac her s w i t h di ffe r entt eac hi ng cert i fi cat es cannotbe cons i der ed compar at or s . 24 P. S. § 12- 1202, s t at es t hat“N o t eac her s hal l t eac h, i n anypubl i c s chool , anybr anch w hi ch he ha s notbeen c er t i fi ed t o t eac h. ” T h u s, a c c o rd in g to th e S c h o o l D istric t, “[ i]f [ th e p lain tiff

tea c h e rs] c o u ld n o t leg a lly7

p e rf o rm th e sa m e jo b a s th e se [ c o m p a ra to r] te a c h e rs . . . th e yc o u ld n o t b e su f f icie n tly c o m p a ra b le to th e se tea c h e rs, a n d , the re f o re , co u ld n o t su p p o rt a n yd isc rim in a tio n c laim bycompar i ng t hemsel ves t o t hes e [c om par at or ] t eac her s . ” Thi s ar gum entm i s s es t he m a rk . W hen maki ng outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, a pl ai nt i ff ne ed onl ys how t hatt he jo b s b e in g c o m p a re d a re s u b s ta n tia lly e q u a l, n o t n e c e s s a ri ly th a t th e ya re id e n tic a l. Forsberg v. Pac ific Northw est Bell Telephone Co. , 8 4 0 F . 2 d 1 4 0 9 , 1 4 1 4 ( 9 C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) . T he th E PA defi nes w hatcons t i tut es equal w or k as j obs t hatr equi r e equa l s ki l l , eff or t , and res po nsi bil i t y . A dd i t i on al l y , w hen a cou rtasses ses the sub st anti al equ al i t ybetw een jobs, it s h o u ld re ly o n a c tu a l jo b p e rf o rm a n c e a n d c o n te n t r a th e r t h a n jo b d e s c ri p tio n s . M o re o v e r, b e c a u se o f

th e h e a v ilyf

a c t-d riv e n c h a ra c ter o f

th e in q u iry , su b sta n tial e q u a lity m us tbe det erm i ned on a c as e- by - cas e bas i s . D ependi ng on t he fa ct s and the evi dence pr es ent ed, t he pr opercompar at orm i ghtbe anothert eac herw i t hi n t he s ame cer t i fi cat i on class. A sch o o l distri ct m ayh av e a p arti cu lar ne ed , justi fy ing p ayd iffe ren ti als, to h ir e t eac her s cert i fi ed i n s peci fi c s ubj ectar eas . A ccor di ngl y , i n s om e ci r cumst ance s , pl ai nt i ffs in o n e c e rtific a tio n c las s c laim in g a g e o r se x d isc rim in a tio n m a yn o t p ro p e rlyb e a b le to us e a t eac heri n anothercert i fi cat i on cl as s as a compar at or . B eca us e of thi s heavyfac tual d e ter m in a tio n , h o w e v e r, th e p re se n c e o f a sta tu te lim iti n g w h o c a n tea c h sp e c if ic s u b jec ts i s notdet erm i nat i ve forpurpos es of as s es s i ng w hetherj obs ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed foran E PA cl ai m . T hi s i s es peci al l yt he ca s e w her e, as her e, t he School D i s t r i cthad a pol i cyof8

st art i ng al l new t eache rs , i rr espect i ve o f cert i fi cat i on , atthe sam e payrat e. A tal l even t s, beca us e of the fa ctual natur e of the i nqui r y , t he pr es ence of the pr offe r ed s t atut e i s not d eterm inative f

o r pu rpo ses o f a n E P A p ri m a f ac ie claim an d the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err in d en y ing the m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t and co n clud ing that w h ethe r th e job s are s im ila rl ys itu a te d is a f

a c t is s u e a p p ro p ri a te f

o r t h e ju ry. C . W e qui ckl ydi s pos e of the School D i s t r i ct ’ s cl ai m t hat , as a mat t erof l aw , t he D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yd e ter m in in g th a t a lib ra ria n w h o h o ld s “ a n in stru c tio n a l ce rtific a te in li b raryscien ce s m ayn o t be c o n side red a tea ch er,” b yn o ti n g that the D istri ct C o u rt m a d e n o su c h ru lin g . B yf ra m in g th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to a llo w a ju ryto re a c h its ow n deci s i on r egar di ng t he s i m i l ar i t ybetw een pl ai nt i ffs and the l i br ar i an as a dec i s i on t hata l i br ar i an coul d neverbe cons i der ed a c om par at or , t he School D i s t r i ct m isch ara cterizes the n ature o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ruli n g . In f ac t, the D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l yal l ow ed evi dence fr om bot h s i des on t he ques t i on w hethera l i br ar i an s houl d be c o n sid e re d sim ilarlysitu a ted to p lain tiff s u n d e r th e E P A , co n sis ten t w ith b o th th e f a c td ri v en an aly sis suc h an inq u iryp rese n ts an d the m an n er in w h ich o ther tea ch erc o m p a ra to rs w e re a n a lyze d . D . T he School D i s t r i ct ’ s appea l fr om t he deni al of i t s m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t er o f l a w i s a l s o u n a v a i l i n g . He r e , a s we n o t e d e a r l i e r , t h e p l a i n t i f f s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i rp r i ma9

fac i e ca s e forbot h t hei rE PA and A D E A cl ai m s . T her efor e, anycl ai m byt he School D i s t r i ctt hatt he pl ai nt i ffs had no evi dence t hatanyof the compar at ort eac her s w er e hi r ed a t h ig h e r t h a n s te p 1 b e c a u s e o f th e irg e n d e r o r a g e is in a p t. R ecogni zi ng t hi s , t he School D i s t r i ctaddi t i onal l yar gues t hat“the cl ai m t hatt he School D i s t r i ctpr ovi ded i ncons i s t entr eas ons fori t s deci s i on fi nds no s uppor ti n t he r e c o r d , ” t h u s c o n t e s t i n g t h e j u r y ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e c o n t r a r yo n t h e EPA a n d AD EA c laim s. W e d isa g re e . T h e ir a rg u m e n t is e a silyre f u ted b yth e tes tim o n yo f f e re d b yb o th t he s uper i nt endentand the s chool boar d m ember s t hatw as ei t hercontr adi ct or yorel us i ve w i t h r es pectt o t he r eas ons behi nd t he s al arydi s cr epanc i es . Fori ns t ance , att r i al Super i nt endentM uel l erw as unabl e t o expl ai n w hatt he School D i s t r i cthad meantw hen, i n i t s ans w ert o t he PH R C compl ai nt , i tpr offe r ed thr ee r eas ons fort he hi r i ng d iscrep an cies: he co u ld n o t exp lai n w h at “a p p li ca b le l aw ” c o u ld h av e re q u ir ed the s alary di ffe r ence s , he di d notknow w ho had s ugges t ed “e xper i ence ” as a pos s i bl e j us t i fi cat i on, and he a dm i t t ed thatt he r eas on gi ven fort he hi r i ng of M s . St ock ata hi gherl evel w as fal s e. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatt he “s peci al i zed c er t i fi cat i on” r at i onal e fort he hi r i ng of the compar at ort eac her s w as new and thati tdi d notappl yt o M s . St ock eve n though i n t he School D i s t r i ct ’ s ans w er , he had c l ai m ed thati tdi d. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatt he School D i s t r i cthad cha nged i t s r eas on fort he hi r i ng di s cr epanc i es . Fur t herm or e, w hen pr es s ed o n h is c laim th a t th e sc a rc ityo f a p p lica n ts n e c e ss itate d th e h ig h e r sa lar ies , h e w a s u n a b le t o t es t i fyas t o how m anyot hert eac her s had appl i ed fort he pos i t i on oreven how m any10

w er e cons i der ed. H e al s o s ugges t ed thathi r i ng M s . St ock ata hi ghers al arys t ep w as m ot i vat ed byl oy al t yforhers hor t - t erm s ubs t i tut e t eac hi ng. A ddi t i onal l y , t hr ee s chool boar d m ember s t es t i fi ed thatt heydi d notknow w hym anyof the t eac her s w er e hi r ed at th e irp a ys te p s . W e coul d go on, buti n s hor t , vi ew i ng t he evi dence m os tfavor abl yt o t he pr evai l i ng par t y , i ti s cl eart hata r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d have f ound t hatt he School D i s t r i ct ’ s pr offe r ed nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on w as notpr oved, and thatt he r ecor d i s not cr i t i cal l ydefi ci entof thatm i ni m um quantum of evi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur ym i ght r eas onabl yaff

or d r el i ef t o pl ai nt i ffs . I n fac t , w hatemer ges m os tcl ear l yfr om t he tr i al tra n sc rip t is th a t th e S c h o o l D istric t h a d n o c lea r p o licyo r p ro c e d u re s th a t itc o n sis ten tly foll ow ed fo r hi ri ng i t s t eache rs and , accordingl y , i t s ex po st at t empt s t o j us t i fyt he d isc re p a n c ies w e re u n p e rsu a siv e a n d n o t b e liev a b le. B e c a u se th e re c o rd c lea rlysu g g e sts t hatt her e w as no cohes i ve orcons i s t entans w ert o t he ques t i on w hyt he compar at or t eac her s w er e hi r ed ats i gni fi cant l yhi ghers al ar i es , a j ur ycoul d have f ound t hatt he School D i s t r i ct ’ s pr offe r ed nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons w er e unbel i evabl e, and, con sequen t l y , w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of the m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f la w . E . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tt o be pl ace d hi gherup on t he pay s cal e, i n l i ne w i t h t hei rcompar at or s . I ti s w el l s et t l ed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our thas di s cr et i on11

t o fas hi on equi t abl e r el i ef t o eff ectuat e the purpos es of the Ti t l e V I I s t atut or ys cheme, sp ec ifi ca ll y , in o rde r t o aw ard m ak e-w h o le da m ag es. M o reo v er, w h ere , as h ere , the ju ry m a k e s e x p licit f

in d in g s th a t, ha d th e d isc rim in a tio n n o t o c c u rre d , the p lain tiff s w o u ld have be en athi ghers al arys t eps , a D i s t r i ctC our tm ayappr opr i at el yfas hi on an aw ar d of damages t o s uppor tt hi s fi ndi ng. T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on her e t o pl ace t he p la in tif f s in th e s a m e p o s itio n a s th e irc o m p a ra to rs w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . F. T he School D i s t r i ctfi nal l yat t empt s t o m anufa ctur e a c onfl i ctbetw een tw o of our cas es conce r ni ng t he appl i cabi l i t yof damages i n A D E A cas es . T heycl ai m t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n aw ar di ng l i qui dat ed damages undert he A D E A bot h beca us e the l i qu i dated dam ages are prohi bit ed u nd er the A D E A and becau se the S cho ol D i stri cti s a governm entent i t y . T he School D i s t r i ct ’ s ar gum entt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s aw ar d w as i m perm i s s i bl e i s for ecl os ed byourdeci s i on i n P o ten c e v . H a zle to n A re a Sc h . D ist. , 357 F. 3d 366 370 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , w her e w e det erm i ned thatt her e i s no ques t i on t hat liq u id a te d d a m a g e s a re a c c e p ta b le u n d e r t h e A D E A . P ot ence , 54 F. 3d at372 ( “[W ] hen a j ur yfi nds t hatan empl oy erw i l l ful l yvi ol at ed the A D E A , t he bas i c damages aw ar d m aybe d o u b led u n d e r [ th e ] liq u id a ted d a m a g e s p ro v isio n .”). A d d iti o n a lly , this re m e d yis a v a ila b le a g a in s t m u n ic ip a litie s lik e th e S c h o o l D is tr ic t. S e e id . ( “[T] he l anguage of the A D E A i t s el f m akes i tcl eart hatC ongr es s i nt ended t o s ubj ectm uni ci pal i t i es l i ke the12

School D i s t r i ctt o t he l i qui dat ed damages pr ovi s i on of the A D E A . ”) . C ons equent l y , t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s a w a rd o f liq u id a te d d a m a g e s , a s a le g a l m a tte r, w a s p ro p e r . I n an att empt t o avoi d t he ef fec tof thi s s et t l ed l aw , how ever , t he School D i s t r i ct in sis ts th a t Starceski v . W estinghouse Elec . Corp. , 5 4 F . 3 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 1 0 0 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) c o n f licts w ith the ru le th at l iqu idated d am ag es a re a cc ep table u n d er the A D E A . E v en a m ere cur s or yr eadi ng of Star ces kid isab u ses th is cl aim . T h e o n lyq u esti o n that the C o u rt addr es s ed i n Star ces kiw a s w h e th e r p re -ju d g m e n t in ter e st m a yb e a w a rd e d a lo n g w ith liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . Star ces ki , 54 F. 3d at1101 ( concl udi ng thataw ar ds of pr e- j udgm ent i nt er es tand l i qui dat ed damages ar e perm i s s i bl e undert he A D E A ) . T he ques t i on w as not w h e th e r liq u id a ted d a m a g e s a re a p p ro p ria te u n d e r th e A D E A . In f a c t, th e C o u rt e x p re ss ly a llo w e d a g ra n t o f

liq u id a te d d a m a g e s u n d e r t h e A D E A . Id . a t1 1 0 2 ( “ Th e AD EA i ncorpor at es t he FL SA ’ s l i qui dat ed damages pr ovi s i on. ”) . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f

liq u id a te d d a m a g e s in th is c a s e w a s c o rr e c t. I V. In su m m ary , an d fo r th e re aso n s set fo rth ab o v e, th e jud g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rt w ill b e a f

f ir m e d .