FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 31, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 84 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 0- cv -0 24 37 -ECS DONALD E. GRYDER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us L. FRED DENN IN, III, FRA Re gi on al Dire ct orAtl an ta , et al ., Defen da nt s, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 31 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Thi s i s a Ti tl e VII ca se . Se e 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e et seq . App el la ntis a fo rm er em

pl oyee of th e Fed eral Rai lro adAdm in is tra ti on (“ FRA”) , an a ge nc y of th e Dep art m en t o f Tran sp orta ti on . In 2 00 3, a ju ry , inanadvi so ry ve rd ic t, awar de d hi m $2 50 ,00 0 fo r lo stwage s an d b en efi ts on hi s cl ai m th at , in19 97 , th e FRA ret al ia te d a ga in sthi m , invi ol at io n o f Tit le VII, by term in at in g h is em pl oym en t as a Mo ti ve Po wer & Equi pm en t In sp ect orforfil in g c om pl ai nt s wi th th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Com m is si on . The d is tri ctco urt s ub se qu en tl y fou ndth at th e FRA wo ul d h av e d is ch arg edap pe ll an t i n t he ab se nc e o f an y ret al ia to ry

bi as an d d ecl in edto awardequi tabl e rel ie f. App el la ntap pe al ed , anda pa ne l o f th is co urt v acat edth e d eci si onan d re m an de d t he cas e fo r th e awardof e qu it ab le rel ie f. Cr yd er v. No rma n Y

. Min eta , 14 3 F ed .App x. 2 97 (11 Cir . 20 05 )(Tab le ). th On re m an d, the di st ric t co urt, i n ajud gm en t en te redonSep te m be r 15 , 20 10 , or de redth e Sec ret ary to rei ns ta te ap pe ll an t t o h is pre vi ou s p os it io n o r an equi va le ntpo si ti on an d a ward edap pe ll an t b ackpay inth e su m

of $ 92 3,6 56 . App el la ntno w app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t, ar gu in g t ha t the co urt ab us ed it s d is cret io n b y

“re-e xa m in in g t he jury ve rd ic t,” f ai li ng to pro pe rly calc ul at e h is cl ai m forba ck pay , reduc in g t he awardby $20 ,00 0.0 0 p er y ear b as edon hi s ob ta in in g p art -ti m e work a fte r hi s t erm in at io n, an d fa il in g t o a dd res s h is cla im s fo r 2ov ert im e, an nu al bo nu se s, an nu al lea ve , si cklea ve , con tri bu ti on s t o the

de fen da nt ’s Thri ft S av in gs Pla n (“ TSP”), an d a“ gr os s up” forth e ta x co ns eque nc es of r ecei vi ng a lu m p s um pa ym en t. He al so arg ue s t ha t the co urt fai le d t o g iv e fu ll rel ie f by rein st at in g h im to hi s p rev io us po si ti onin st eadof or de rin g t ha t h e b e p ro m ot edto a “ se ni orlev el [] pos it io n.” W e fi ndno m eri t i n hi s ap pe al an d t he refo re af firm .

“ The pu rp os e o f Tit le VII rel ie f is to ‘ m ak e who le ’ vi ct im s o f un lawfu l di sc riminat io n.” Vir

go v. Rivi era Bea ch Ass oc s., Ltd. , 30 F.3d13 50 , 13 63 (11 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The s ta tu te ve st s “ br oa d e qu it ab le di sc ret io n” ina fed eral co urt t o fa sh io n t he “ m os t co m pl et e rel ie f po ss ib le .” Id. “ App ro pr ia te ly, we rev ie w th e awardof d am ag es ina Tit le VII cas e fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Id. “ A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n i f itap pl ie s an in co rrec t l eg al st an da rd , ap pl ie s t he law i n a n u nr eas on ab le or i nc orrectm an ne r, fo ll ows im pr op er pr oc edur es inm ak in g ade te rm in at io n, o r m ak es fin di ng s o f fac t tha t ar e cl earl y erro ne ou s.” Bro wn v. Ala ba ma Dep ’t o f Tr an sp . , 59 7 F .3d11 60 , 11 73 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Tit le VII pr ov id es bro ad ly tha t: If the co urt fi nd s t ha t the res po nd en t h as in te nt io na ll y en ga ge d i n o r is in te nt io na ll y

en ga gi ng inanun la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e ch arg edin th e co m pl ai nt , th e co urt m ay

. . . or de r su ch affi rm at iv e act io n a s m ay 3be ap pr op ria te , whi ch m ay in cl ud e, . . . rein st at em en t o r hi rin g o f em pl oyees, wi th or wi th ou t b ackpa y . . ., or a ny oth er equi tabl e rel ie f as th e co urt d eem s ap pr op ria te . . . . Int eri m earn in gs or am ou nt s earn ab le with re as on ab le di li ge nc e b y th e p ers on or p ers on s di sc riminat edag ai ns t s ha ll op erat e to reduc e th e b ackpa y ot he rwis e al lo wab le . 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -5 (g )(1 ).

“ Su cces sf ul Tit le VII cl ai m an ts . . . are p res um pt iv el y en ti tl edto ba ckpa y .” La th am v. Dep ’t o

f Ch ildr en &Y

ou th Se rvs. , 17 2 F .3d78 6, 7 94 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Nev erthe le ss , bac kp ay

is no t “ anau to m at ic or m an da to ry rem edy ; l ik e al l o th er rem ed ie s u nd er the Act, i t i s o ne whi ch th e co urts ‘ m ay ’ in vo ke .” Alb ema rl e Pap er Co . v. Moo dy , 42 2 U.S. 4 05 , 41 5- 16 , 95 S.Ct . 23 62 , 23 70 -7 1, 4 5 L.Ed . 2d 28 0 (1 97 5) . “ Bac k p ay

is th e d iff

eren ce b etweenth e actua l wag es earn edan d t he wag es th e in di vi du al wou ldha ve earn edinth e p os it io n t ha t, b utforth e di sc riminat io n, the in di vi du al wou ldha ve att ai ne d.” Akou ri v. Flo ri da Dep’ t o f Tr an sp . , 40 8 F .3d13 38 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “Unr eal is ti c ex act itud e is no t re qu ire d a s t he ba ck -p ay cal cu la ti on m ay

be ba se d o n ju stan d reas on ab le in fere nc e o f th e m is si ng or i m pr eci se fig ur e.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Howev er, the pl ai nt iff

m us t p res en t s om e ev id en ce fr om whi ch th e fi nd er o f fac t can be gi n areas on ab le cal cu la ti on of aba ck -p ay award . Id. at 1 34 4 (h ol di ng th at a su cces sf

ul Tit le VII pl ai nt iff

was e nt it le d o nl y

to no m in al dam ag es du e to hi s

4fai lu re t o p ro vi de “ any ev id en ce wh at so ev er o f hi s ac tu al earn in gs whi le em pl oyed”) . Add it io na ll y , “ Tit le VII requi res pl ai nt iff s t o m it ig at e th ei r da m ag es th ro ug h reas on ab ly dil ig en t ef

fo rts to see k e m

pl oym en t tha t i s s ub st an ti al ly equ iv al en t.” La th am , 17 2 F .3dat 7 94 . “ [T]he b ur de n o f pr ov in g l ackof d il ig en ce i s o n t he em pl oyer.” EEOC v. Mas se y Y ar dl ey Ch rysl er

Plymo uth , 11 7 F .3d12 44 , 12 51 -5 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (in th e ADEA con te xt ). “ If the cla im an t d eci de s t o g o i nt o a di ss im il ar l in e o f work, o r to acce pta de m ot io n, h is earn in gs m us t b e d educ te d fro m an y ev en tu al ba ck

pay award .” Ford Mo to r C

o. v. EEOC , 45 8 U.S. 2 19 , 23 2 n.1 6, 1 02 S.Ct . 30 57 , 30 66 n.1 6, 7 3 L.Ed .2d72 1 (1 98 2) .

“ Inad di ti onto ba ckpa y , pre va il in g Ti tl e VII p la in ti ffs are p res um pt iv el y en ti tl edto eit he r rei ns ta te m en t o r fro ntpa y .” EEOC v. W & O, Inc . , 21 3 F .3d60 0, 61 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 0) . Alth ou gh we pr es um e th atrei ns ta te m en t i s t he ap pr op ria te rem edy ina wro ng fu l d is ch arg e cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt m ay awardfro ntpa y

inli eu of rei ns ta te m en t i f “ ex te nu at in g c irc um st an ces warran t s uc h re li ef.” Id. The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n b y award in g ap pe ll an t $ 92 3,6 56 .08 inba ckpa y an d d educ ti ng $2 0,0 00 .00 pe r y ear i n m it ig at io n fo r wha t h e co ul d h av e earne d b y work in g p artti m e aft er h is te rm in at io n. Al th ou gh he ch al le ng es th e d en ia l o f TSP co nt rib ut io ns , ann ua l 5le av e, th e “ gr os s up” fortax co ns eque nc es , ov ert im e, pe rfo rm an ce b onus es , and

si ck lea ve , he p res en te d o nl y

hi s o wn s pe cu la ti ve tes ti m on y an d c al cu la ti on s t o supp ort thi s re li ef. Fu rth erm or e, th e d is tri ctco urt re as on ab ly foundth athe co ul d ha ve co nt in ue d wo rk in g a t the pa rt- ti m e job s h e o bt ai ne d i n 1 99 9 a nd20 00 , and th e co urt re as on ab ly redu cedhi s b ack -p ay awardby the am ou nthe co ul d h av e earn edinalt ern at iv e em

pl oym en t af

te r hi s t erm in at io n. See Ford Mo to r C o. , 45 8 U.S. at 2 35 -3 7, 1 02 S.Ct . at 3 06 7- 68 (requi rin g a n a wardof b ackpa y pa stth e ti m e th e v ic ti m

ha s fo un d o th er em

pl oym en t wo ul d p la ce the cla im an t i n abe tt er po si ti onth anth ey

were i n b efo re the di sc riminat io n o ccurred ). Fin al ly, be cau se ap pe ll an t fa il edto pre se ntan y ev id en ce tha t h e was li ke ly to h av e b een pro m ot ed , th e co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y ord eri ng th e Sec ret ary to rei ns ta te hi m to th e sa m e p os it io n h e o ccupi edpri orto hi s t erm in at io n. AFFIR MED.

6