2005 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 5-20-2005 

# C au field v . C tr Are a S ch 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 . 04-2538

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 anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

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 ll anova 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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C au fie ld v

. C tr Ar e a S ch" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1150. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1150NO T PRECEDENTI 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 o. 04- 2538 M AR I ANNE CA UF I E L D, A ppel l ant

v. T H E C E N T E R A R E A S C H O O L D IS T R IC T ; THE CENT ER ARE A SC HOO L DI S TRI CT B OARD O F DI REC TORS

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. 02- cv- 02135) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r t hurJ . Schw ab

A r gued M ay3, 2005 B efor e: M cK E E , V A N A N T W E R PE N , and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed M ay20, 2005) B ernar d J . R abi k, E s q. ( A r gued) R eed, Lu ce, T osh, W olfor d & D ou glas s 804 T ur npi ke St r eet B eave r , Penns y l vani a 15009- 2114 C ouns el f orAppel l ant A nt honyG . Sanchez , E s q. ( A r gued) L es l i e D . H el l er , E s q. A ndr ew s & Pr i ce2

1 5 0 0 A rdm o re B o u leva rd Sui t e 506 Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a 15221 C ouns el f orAppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. T h e c ase b ef

o re u s p rese n ts an ap p ea l of a D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm enti n an age di s cr i m i nat i on s ui t . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e r ever s e and r emand. I. F a cts T he fol l ow i ng fac t s ar e undi s put ed. M ar i anne Caufi el d ( “A ppel l ant ”) w as bor n on M ay10, 1944, and gr aduat ed fr om D uques ne U ni ver s i t yi n 1976 w i t h a B ache l or ’ s degr ee in e d u c a tio n . A p p e llan t is c e rtifie d to tea c h e lem e n tar ye d u c a tio n in th e C o m m o n w e a lth of Penns y l vani a. She began w or ki ng as a s ubs t i tut e t eac herforA ppel l ees C ent erA r ea S c h o o l D istric t an d th e C e n ter A re a S c h o o l D istric t B o a rd o f D ire c to rs ( c o llec tiv e ly “C en ter A rea ”) in 1 9 9 2 , an d u n su cc essf u ll yso u g h t em p loym en t as a f u ll -t im e e lem en tary t eac heratC ent erA r ea i n 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2002. B etw een 1997 a nd 2004, C ent erA r ea hi r ed appr oxi m at el y18 ful l - t i m e el ement aryt eac her s , 15 of w hom w er e on th e su b stitu te list. A ppel l antdel i ber at el ypl ace d her s el f on the s ubs t i tut e l i s tof onl ythe C ent erA r ea3

School D i s t r i ct . She bel i eved thi s w oul d enhanc e heroppor tuni t yfora t eac hi ng pos i t i on th e re , as C e n ter A re a h a d h ire d th e m a jo rityo f its f u ll-ti m e tea c h e rs f

ro m th e su b stitu te l i s ti n t he pas t . A tal l t i m es r el evantt o t hi s s ui t , A ppel l antw as “occ as i onal l y ” aw ar e of openi ngs forful l - t i m e el ement aryt eac her s atot hers chool di s t r i ct s . She al s o s t at ed that s he had no i nt ent i on of s ubm i t t i ng appl i cat i ons t o anyot hers chool di s t r i ct s i n t he futur e. O n M ay24, 2000, A ppel l ants i gned a Char ge of D i s cr i m i nat i on w i t h t he Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni t yC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) , pr es ent i ng a ca s e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on. T he C har ge i ndi cat es thatthe ea r l i es tdat e of di s cr i m i nat i on t ook pl ace on A ugus t2, 1999, t he l at es toccurr ed on M ar ch 29, 2000, and thatthi s w as a cont i nui ng act i on. O n D ece m ber12, 2002, A ppel l antfi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a al l egi ng age di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of t he A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct , 29 U . S. C . § 621, ets eq. ( “A D E A ”) , and the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct , 43 Pa. C ons . St at . § 951, ets eq. ( “PH R A ”) . I n t hat compl ai nt , A ppel l antdemanded r el i ef i n t he form of ( 1) a dec l ar at oryj udgm entthather r i ghtt o be fr ee of

age di s cr i m i nat i on both underthe A D E A and PH R A had bee n vi ol at ed; (2) a m an d atoryinjun cti o n d ir ec ti n g C en ter A rea to h ir e h er a s a f u ll -t im e e lem en tary t eac herand make herw hol e w i t h r egar d t o l os tearni ngs , i ns ur ance benef i t s , vaca t i on and per s onal l eave t i m e, and anyot heremol um ent s of empl oym ents he had be en depr i ved of; ( 3) compensa t i on foremot i onal di s tr es s ; ( 4) l i qui dat ed damages underthe A D E A ; ( 5) a t t o r n e y’ s f

e e s a n d c o s t s ; a n d ( 6 ) a n y o t h e ra p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f , i n c l u d i n g f

r o n tp a y,4

p u n itiv e a n d e x e m p la ry d a m a g e s . C ent erA r ea moved t o di s m i s s al l cl ai m s underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) . A U ni t ed St at es M agi s t r at e J udge i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on on A ugus t12, 2003, re c o m m e n d in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n t C e n ter A re a ’s m o tio n to d ism iss o n lyw ith r egar d t o A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m forpuni t i ve damages . T hi s R epor tand R ecomm endat i on w as adopt ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our ton A ugus t26, 2003. C ent erA r ea then moved forpart i al s um m aryj udgm enton A pr i l 8, 2004, w i t h r egar d t o ( 1) anycl ai m s ar i s i ng befor e 1999; ( 2) al l cl ai m s form oneydamages ; ( 3) and al l cl ai m s forcompensa t i on foremot i onal d istre ss . T h e D istric t C o u rt u n ilate ra llyc o n v e rte d th is in to a m o tio n f o r c o m p lete s um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch w as gr ant ed i n t hatC our t ’ s M emora ndum O pi ni on of A pr i l 30, 2 0 0 4 . T h e c a s e w a s s u b s e q u e n tly m a rk e d c lo s e d . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew Th e Di s t r i c tCou r th a d o r i g i n a l s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rApp e l l a n t ’ s AD EA c laim u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 , an d h a d su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n o v e r A p p e llan t’s s tate PH R A cl ai m under28 U . S. C . § 1367( a) , as the s t at e cl ai m had the s ame factual nucl eus s o as t o “form par tof the s ame cas e orcontr over s yunderA r t i cl e I I I of the U ni t ed St at es C o n sti tuti o n . ” S ee U n it ed M ine W o rke rs of A m erica v . G ibb s, 3 8 3 U . S . 7 1 5 , 7 2 5 (19 6 6 ); Pet erB ayH om eow ner s A s s ’ n, I nc. v. St i l l m an, 294 F. 3d 524, 533 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . O ur j ur i s di ct i on i s gr ounded i n 28 U . S. C . § 1291, as the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M emora ndum O p in io n g ra n tin g C e n ter A re a ’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s a f in a l an d a p p e a lab le5

o rde r. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof C ent erA r ea de novo . B l ai rv. Scot tSpeci al t yG as es , 283 F. 3d 595, 602- 03 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; T orr es v. M cLaughl i n, 163 F. 3d 169, 170 ( 3d. C i r . 1998) . W hen r evi ew i ng the pr opr i etyof a gr ant o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w e a p p ly th e s a m e te s t a d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e a p p lie d . B ucks C ount yD ept . of M ent al H eal t h/ M ent al R et ar dat i on v. Penns y l vani a, 379 F. 3d 61, 65 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; M or t on I nt ern. , I nc. v. A . E . St al eyM fg. C o. , 343 F. 3d 669, 679 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); O ls o n v . G e n . E le c . A s tr o s p a c e , 1 0 1 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T h a t is , a gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw her e the movi ng par t yhas es t abl i s hed th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e d isp u te o f m a ter ial f

a c t, an d “ th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56 ( c ) ; Cel ot e x Corp. v. Catr e t t , 47 7 U. S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (1 9 8 6 ); E m o ry v . A s tr a Z e n e c a P h a rm . L P , 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 7 4 , 1 7 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W her e the def

endanti s t he movi ng part y , the i ni t i al bur den i s on t he def endantt o s how t hatt he pl ai nt i ff ha s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h one orm or e es s ent i al el ement s t o hercas e. See C elotex C o rp., 4 7 7 U . S . at 32 3 -24 . O n a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, a d istri ct co u rt m u st v iew th e f

a c ts in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rtya n d m u st m a k e a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n t hatpar t y ’ s favor . M ar zano v. C om put erSci . C orp. , 91 F. 3d 4 9 7 , 5 0 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (cit ing A rm b ruster v . U n isy s C o rp., 3 2 F . 3 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 )). I I I . D i s cus s i onD es pi t e the fa ctt hatnei t herA ppel l antnorC ent erA r ea ha ve devot ed anydi s cus s i on 1 i n t hei rbr i efs t o the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof compl et e s um m aryj udgm ent , i ti s w i t hi n our po w er t o reverse and rem and t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nal or der on d i fferentgroun ds, r egar dl es s of w hetherornott heyar e ar gued bythe part i es . See G ambi no v. M orr i s , 134 F. 3d 156, 169 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( not i ng that“appe l l at e court s m ayi n t hei rdi s cr et i on cons i deri s s ues notpr oper l yr ai s ed i n an openi ng br i ef . . . i f the err ori s s o ‘ pl ai n’ that m anifesti njust i ce w ou l d o t herw i se r esul t . ”); see al so H erber tv. N at ’l A cad. of Sc i ences, 974 F. 2d 192, 196 ( D . C . C i r . 1992) ( ci t ed i n G ambi no, 134 F. 3d at169) ; U ni t ed St at es v. U l l ah, 976 F. 2d 509, 514 ( 9t h C i r . 1992) ( cons i der i ng m ani fes ti nj us t i ce i n t he cr i m i nal co n text). 6 T her e ar e tw o i s s ues pr es ent ed bythi s cas e. T he fi r s t , w hetherornotA ppel l ant h a s s a tis f

ie d h e r d u ty to m itig a te m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s , h a s b e e n b ri e f e d b yb o th p a rt ie s . T h e se co n d , w h ethe r or n o t th e D istri ct C o u rtap p rop ri atelyco n v erted C en ter A rea ’s m ot i on forpar t i al s um m aryj udgm enti nt o a mot i on forcompl et e s um m aryj udgm ent , has not . W i t h due r es pectt o t he l i t i gant s , w e s hal l fi r s taddr es s the i s s ue thatw as notbr i efe d befo re m ov i ng t o the que st i on of m i t i gati on of d am ages. 1 A . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f co m p lete su m m a ry ju d

g m e n t. C ent erA r ea’ s m ot i on forpar t i al s um m aryj udgm entaddr es s ed onl ythr ee a r eas for w h ich th eyb eli ev ed su m m aryjud g m en t i n their fa v o r w as a p p rop ri ate: (1) A p p ell an t’ s A D E A and PH R A cl ai m s ar i s i ng pr i ort o 1999; ( 2) A ppel l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o m i t i gat e her m onet arydamages ; and ( 3) A ppel l ant ’ s demand forcompensa t i on foremot i onal damages un der the A D E A . T he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd i n fav or of C enterA rea as t o each of these ar eas . I tt hen w enta s t ep furt her , gr ant i ng compl et e s um m aryj udgm enti n favorofW ith reg ard to A p p ell an t’ s P H R A claim , the D istri ct C o u rtstat ed : “. . . a d istri ct co u rt 2 m a yd e c lin e to e x e rc ise su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n o v e r a c laim if [ it] h a s d ism iss e d a ll cl ai m s overw hi ch i thas or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on . . . [t ] her efor e, the C our tdi s m i s s es Pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s ar i s i ng undert he PH R A w i t houtpr ej udi ce. ” M emora ndum O pi ni on at 6. C en ter A rea arg u ed b elow that A p p ell an t’ s A D E A an d P H R A claim s arisi n g b ef o re 3 1999 s houl d have be en di s m i s s ed bec aus e s he fa i l ed t o exhaus theradmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es and/ orbeca us e s he fa i l ed t o fi l e t i m el yadmi ni s t r at i ve cl ai m s . A ppel l ant co n sen ted to this dism issal i n h er R esp o n se to D ef en d an ts’ M o ti o n fo r P arti al S u m m ary Ju d g m e n t. T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a f

aci e cas e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on underthe A D E A , a pl ai nt i ff 4 m u st e sta b lish th a t: (1 ) sh e w a s o v e r 4 0 a t th e tim e sh e a p p lied f o r th e p o sitio n in qu est i on ; (2) she w as quali fi ed fo r the p osi t i on i n q uest i on ; (3) despit e her qu al i fi cat i on s, s he w as r ej ect ed; and ( 4) t he empl oy erul t i m at el yfi l l ed the pos i t i on w i t h s om eone s uffi ci ent l yy oungert o perm i tan i nfer ence of age di s cr i m i nat i on. N ar i n v. L ow erM er i on School D i s t . , 206 F. 3d 323, 331 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng B r ew erv. Q uakerSt at e O i l R ef. 7 C enterA rea as t o A pp el l ant’ s A D E A and P H R A cl ai m s. 2 T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpl ai n w hythi s w as done. E xcl udi ng the cha r ges of di s cr i m i nat i on pr i ort o 1999, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d t hatanyes s ent i al 3 el ementof ei t herA ppel l ant ’ s A D E A cl ai m orherPH R A cl ai m w as chal l enged byC ent er A rea’ s m oti on for part i al sum m aryj ud gm ent. A s w e see i t , the D i stri ctC ou rtfi rs t rejected an yclaim fo r reco v eryfo r em o ti o n al distr ess, an d then fo u n d that A p p ell an t’ s fai l ur e t o m i t i gat e herm onet arydamages pr event ed herfr om r ecove r i ng anyfr ontorback p a yu n d e r t h e A D E A a n d P H R A . T he Supr eme C our thas es t abl i s hed a bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k forcl ai m s under Ti t l e V I I , i nc l ud i ng A D EA c l a i ms. Se e M c D on ne l l D ou gl a s Corp. v. G r e e n, 41 1 U. S. 792, 802- 03 ( 1973) . T he pl ai nt i ff mustfi r s tes t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e c a se . Id . T h e n , if

4C orp. , 72 F. 3d 326, 330 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ) ; Sem pi erv. J ohns on & H i ggi ns , 45 F. 3d 724, 728

( 3d C i r . 1995) . T hi s fr amew or k i s al s o us ed t o anal y ze PH R A cl ai m s . G om ez v. A ll eg h en yH ea lth S erv s. , Inc . , 7 1 F . 3 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). W e not e that“t o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , a pl ai nt i ff’ s evi dence r ebut t i ng an 5 empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons m us tal l ow a fa ct fi nderr eas onabl yt o i nferthat eac h of the empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons w as ei t hera pos thoc fabr i cat i on orot herw i s e di d notactual l ym ot i vat e the empl oym entact i on ( t hati s , the pr offe r ed r eas on i s a pr et ext ) . ” Fuent es v. Per s ki e, 32 F. 3d 759, 764 ( 3d C i r . 1994) (i n terna l ci tat ion s, em p h asis an d fo o tno tes o m itted). 8 t he pl ai nt i ff i s s ucce s s ful i n m aki ng outa p rim a fa c ie cas e, the bur den s hi ft s t o t he d e f e n d a n t “ to a rt ic u la te s o m e le g itim a te , n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n ” f o r h is a c tio n . Id . Fi nal l y , “s houl d t he def endantcarr ythi s bur den, the pl ai nt i ff then musthave a n oppor tuni t yt o pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe l egi t i m at e r eas ons offe r ed byt he def

endantw er e noti t s true r eas ons , butw er e a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on. ” T ex. D ep’ tof C m t yA ffa i r s v. B ur di ne, 450 U . S. 248, 252- 53 ( 1981) ; W i l l i ams v. Phi l a. H ous . A ut h. Pol i ce D ep’ t , 380 F. 3d 751, 760 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; J ones v. Sch. D i s t . of P h il a., 1 9 8 F . 3 d 4 0 3 , 4 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). O u r resea rch h as n o t disclose d a c ase w h ere 5 m i t i gat i on of damages has been r equi r ed as an es s ent i al el ementof a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . R ather , m i t i gat i on i s a cl ai m ant ’ s dutythatar i s es atthe damage s t age of a di s cr i m i nat i on cas e w hen the amounti s det erm i ned. See, e. g. , A nas t as i o v. Scher i ng C o rp ., 8 3 8 F .2 d 7 0 1 , 7 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T h D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M emora ndum O pi ni on di d notdi s cus s the M cD onnel l D ougl as fr amew or k. I tappea r s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that , beca us e A ppel l antcoul d not r ecove rei t herback a nd forw ar d payorm onet arydamages foremot i onal di s t r es s , al l of9

hercl ai m s undert he A D E A and PH R A w er e def ect i ve i n s om e manner . T hi s concl us i on, how ever , i gnor es bot h t hatt he fa i l ur e t o m i t i gat e i s an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e t o a cl ai m for m oneydamages undert he A D E A , and thatA ppel l ants oughtdecl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve re lie f in a d d itio n to h e r c la im s f o r m o n e ta ry c o m p e n s a tio n . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r el i ance on A nas t as i o v. Scher i ng C orp. i n s uppor tof s um m aryj udgm enti s i nappos i t e. I n A nas t as i o, an empl oy erfound l i abl e forage dis cri m i nati on chall eng ed b oth the co nclusi on that the em ploy ee’s age w as a d e ter m in a tiv e f

a c to r in h is te rm in a tio n a n d th a t th e e m p lo y e e p ro p e rlya ttem p ted to m i t i gat e hi s l os s es . I n t hatcas e, w e fi r s taddr es s ed the ques t i on of fa ul tand then the ques t i on of m onet aryl i abi l i t y . N ow her e di d w e s ugges tthata fa i l ur e t o m i t i gat e damages pr event s a fi ndi ng t hatage di s cr i m i nat i on has occurr ed. C i t i ng A nas t as i o as hol di ng t hat m itig a tio n is a n e s s e n tia l e le m e n t o f a n A D E A o r P H R A c la im w a s e rr o n e o u s . W hi l e a f

i ndi ng t hatA ppel l antfai l ed t o m i t i gat e herdamages m ayl i m i ther r ecove r yof bac k- pay , and compl et el ybaranycl ai m forforw ar d pay , i thas no bear i ng on w h e th e r o r n o t a c laim f o r d isc rim in a tio n c a n b e p ro v e n , o r o n A p p e llan t’s a b ili tyto r e c e i v e d e c l a r a t o r ya n d i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f. Th e g r a n to f s u mma r yj u d g me n ta s t o h e rc l a i ms undert he A D E A and PH R A w as err oneous and w e w i l l r ever s e. B . App el l an t ’s du t

y t o m i t iga t e da m ag es. C ent erA r ea c ont ends t hatA ppel l antfai l ed i n herdutyt o m i t i gat e anydamages t hatm ayhave a r i s en bec aus e of a l l eged a ge di s cr i m i nat i on. T he Supr eme C our thas10

s t at ed: A n u n em p loy ed o r un d ere m p loy ed claim an t, li k e a ll o ther T it le V II c laim a n ts, is su b

jec t to th e sta tu to ryd u tyto m in im ize d a m a g e s s e t o u t in [ 4 2 U. S . C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( g ) ] . T h i s d u t y , r o o t e d i n a n a n c i e n tp r i n c i p l e o f l a w, re q u ire s th e c laim a n t to u se re a so n a b le d ili g e n c e in f in d in g o th e r su itab le empl oym ent . A l t hough t he unempl oy ed orunder empl oy ed cl ai m antneed notgo i nt o anotherl i ne of w or k, acc epta demot i on, ort ake a demeani ng p o sitio n , h e f

o rf e its h is rig h t to b a c k p a yif h e re f u se s a jo b su b sta n tially equi val entt o t he one he w as deni ed. For d M ot orC o. v. E E O C , 458 U . S. 219, 231- 32 ( 1982) ( footnot es and i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W hi l e i ti s t he dutyof a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m antt o m i t i gat e herl os s es , i ti s t he empl oy erw ho has t he bur den of pr ovi ng a fa i l ur e t o m i t i gat e. See R obi ns on v. S o u thea stern P a. T ran sp . A u th., R ed A rrow D iv., 9 8 2 F . 2 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); A nas t as i o, 838 F. 2d at707- 08; G os s v. E xxon O ffi ce Sy s t ems C o. , 747 F. 2d 885, 889 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . T o pr ove a f ai l ur e t o m i t i gat e, C ent erA r ea ha d t o pr ove ei t herthatot her subst anti al l yequ i valentpo si t i on s w ere avai l able t o A pp el l ant and she fa i l ed to use r eas onabl e di l i gence i n at t empt i ng t o s ecur e thos e pos i t i ons , A nas t as i o, 838 F. 2d at708, o r, alte rn a tiv e ly , tha t A p p e llan t w ith d re w e n tirelyf ro m th e e m p lo ym e n t m a rk e t. T u b a ri, L td ., In c . v . N L R B , 9 5 9 F .2 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). W h e n a n e m p lo y e r su c c e ss f u lly pr oves a fa i l ur e t o m i t i gat e, anyback- payaw ar d t o an aggr i eved e m pl oy ee w i l l be cutoff orr educe d begi nni ng att he t i m e of the empl oy ee’ s fai l ur e t o m i t i gat e and a nyfr ont - pay a w a rd w ill b e f

o re c lo s e d . F o rd M o to r C o ., 4 5 8 U .S . a t 2 3 3 -3 4 . I n t hei rm ot i on forpar t i al s um m aryj udgm ent , C ent erA r ea a r gued thatA ppel l ant11

fai l ed t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e di l i gence t o s ecur e s ubs t ant i al l yequi val entpos i t i ons and cons equent l yt hats he had w i t hdr aw n fr om the empl oym entm arket . T hi s ar gum entw as s uppor t ed byevi dence pr es ent ed byC ent erA r ea thata r andom sampl i ng of fours chool di s t r i ct s i n t he ar ea ha d el ement aryt eac heropeni ngs betw een 1999 a nd 2004 t o w hi ch A ppel l antdi d notappl y . W i t h t hi s evi dence i n hand, the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that t her e w er e s ubs t ant i al l yequi val entpos i t i ons avai l abl e atnearbys chool di s t r i ct s , and that A ppel l antfai l ed t o demonstr at e thats he appl i ed foran el ement arypos i t i on atanys chool di s t r i ctexce ptC ent erA r ea. I tal s o concl uded thatA ppel l antm ade no e ffort s w hat s oever t o mi t i g a t e h e rd a ma g e s , s u g g e s t i n g th a tth e Di s t r i c tCo u r tb e l i e v e d s h e h a d wi t h d r a wn c o m p lete lyf

ro m th e e m p lo ym e n t m a rk e t. V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o A ppel l ant , w e ca nnotagr ee that C ent erA r ea ha s m eti t s bur den of de m ons t r at i ng the exi s t ence of s ubs t ant i al l yequi val ent e m p lo ym e n t a t o th e r s c h o o l d is tr ic ts . “The r eas onabl enes s of a Ti t l e V I I cl ai m ant ’ s di l i gence s houl d be eva l uat ed in lig h t o f

th e in d iv id u a l ch a ra c ter istics o f th e c laim a n t an d th e jo b m a rk e t .

. . [g] ener al l y , a pl ai nt i ff mays at i s fythe r eas onabl e di l i gence r equi r ementby demonstr at i ng a cont i nui ng comm i t m entt o be a mem berof the w or k for ce and byr emai ni ng r eady , w i l l i ng, and ava i l abl e t o acc eptempl oym ent . ” B ookerv. T ay l orM i l k C o. , I nc. , 64 F. 3d 860, 865 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T h e o n lyev iden ce su b m itted b yC en ter A rea d em o n str ati n g that there w ere s ubs t ant i al l yequi val entpos i t i ons avai l abl e el s ew her e cons i s t ed of f ouraff i davi t s fr om12

o ff ici als at ran d o m sch o o l distri cts i n the a rea ind icati n g that ea ch d istri ct ha d so m e f o rm o f e lem e n tar ytea c h in g p o sitio n s o p e n b e tw e e n 1 9 9 9 a n d 2 0 0 4 . T h is, b yitse lf , is i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o carr yC ent erA r ea’ s bur den on s um m aryj udgm ent , as i tdoes not i ndi cat e w hethert hos e pos i t i ons w er e of s ubs t ant i al equi val ence t o t eac hi ng pos i t i ons at C ent erA r ea. I ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed thatdi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m ant s ar e notr equi r ed t o t ake les se r o r d iss im ilar w o rk d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f th e ir c laim s to sa tisf

yth e ir d u tyto m i ni m i ze da m ages . For d M ot orC o. , 458 U . S. at232 n. 14. “Subs t ant i al l yequi val ent e m p lo ym e n t f

o r p u rp o se s o f

T itl e V II litiga tio n is th a t em p lo ym e n t w h ich a f f o rd s v irtu a lly i dent i cal pr om ot i onal oppor tuni t i es , compensa t i on, j ob r es pons i bi l i t i es , w or ki ng c o n d iti o n s, a n d sta tu s. . . ” S e llers v . D e lg a d o C m ty . C o lleg e , 8 3 9 F .2 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 8 (5 th C i r . 1988) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . B as ed on the r ecor d befor e us , w e have no i dea w hethert he job po si t i on s ci t ed b yC enterA rea w ere of l esserqu al i t yor ot herw i se d issi m il ar e m p loym en t op p o rtu n it ies. W e c an n o t m ere lyassu m e tha t al l el em en tary tea c h in g p o sitio n s in th e a re a a re , b yth e ir n a tu re , su b sta n tiallye q u iv a len t. In d e e d , itis c o n c e iv a b le th a t an yn u m b e r o f th e o p e n in g s c ited b yC e n ter A re a w e re in d istric ts w ith d issi m il ar c lassroo m sizes, pa ysca les, o r stu d en t discipli n aryp rob lem s, all o f w h ich a re i m po rt ant fact ors i n a teacher’ s em ploym ent deci si on s. W e kn ow no t hing abo ut these p o s itio n s , e x c e p t th a t th e ya re a ll g e n e ri c a lly d e s c ri b e d a s e le m e n ta ry te a c h in g p o s itio n s . W i t houtm or e, C ent erA r ea ha s notm eti t s bur den of de m ons t r at i ng thatther e exi s t edO ur holdi ng shou l d n ot be t aken t o sug gestthat a cl ai m ant can defe nd against 6 s um m aryj udgm entbys o ci r cumscr i bi ng the w or kfor ce t o w hi ch s he i s appl y i ng s uch that re p e a te d a p p lic a tio n o n ly to th e jo b s h e w a s d e n ie d s a tis f ie s h e r m itig a tio n d u tie s . I ndeed, t he dutyt o m i t i gat e w oul d m ake l i t t l e s ens e i f w e w er e t o al l ow a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m antt o ar t i fi ci al l ynarr ow t he w or kfor ce i n t hi s m anner . H ow ever , beca us e C ent er A r ea di d notcarr yi t s bur den of pr oof w i t h r egar d t o m i t i gat i on, w e nee d notr eac h s uch a ques t i on. 13 subst anti al l yequ i valentem ploym ent i n o t her di stri ct s. 6 M or eover , ther e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence i n t he r ecor d t o concl ude thatA ppel l ant re m o v e d h e rse lf

f ro m th e jo b m a rk e t en tirely . It i s u n d isp u ted th a t sh e c o n tin u e d to re m a in on t he s ubs t i tut e t eac herl i s tatC ent erA r ea, thats he t aughtful l t i m e ata par ochi al s chool forfourm ont hs , and thats he cont i nued t o appl yforperm anentel ement aryopeni ngs at C ent erA r ea a s t heybeca m e ava i l abl e. A l t hough a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m ant ’ s eff or t s need notbe s ucce s s ful , s he mustexer ci s e good fa i t h i n att empt i ng t o s ecur e a pos i t i on. T ay l or M i l k , 6 4 F . 3 d a t8 6 5 ( q u o t i n g Re i l l yv . Ci s n e r o s , 8 3 5 F . S u p p . 9 6 , 9 9 - 1 0 0 ( W. D. N. Y. 1 9 9 3 )). G iv e n th a t A p p e llan t ex p lain e d a t d e p o sitio n th a t sh e a p p lied o n lyin th e v icin ity of C ent erA r ea be caus e s he had t o r ai s e herdaught er , w e ca nnots ayas a mat t erof l aw t hat her at t em pts t o secure em ploym ent w ere noti n g oo d faith. A tthe v eryl east , this i s a q u e s tio n f

o r a ju ry. A s w e see i t , t he ev i den ce proffe red byC enterA rea does no tdem on strat e t hat, as a m at t erof l aw , t her e w as s ubs t ant i al l yequi val entempl oym entw hi ch A ppel l antdi d not r eas onabl ydi s cover , ort hats he l eftthe j ob m arketal t ogether . T her efor e, the D i s t r i ct C o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g C e n ter A re a ’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith re g a rd to14

A ppel l ant ’ s m i t i gat i on of damages . H ow ever , even i f the D i s t r i ctC our thad bee n corr ect that C en ter A rea h ad d em o n str ated that A p p ell an t had fa il ed in h er d u tyto m it igate, F o rd M ot orC o. i ns t ruct s t hatback- payforan empl oy ee w ho has fai l ed t o m i t i gat e l os s es w i l l be cutoff orr educe d begi nni ng a t th e tim e o f th e e m p lo y e e ’s fa ilu re to m iti

g a te . For d M ot or C o ., 4 5 8 U .S . at 2 3 3 -3 4 . T h e D istric t C o u rt m a d e n o f in d in g s w ith re g a rd to th e p o in t in t i m e w hen A ppel l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o pr oper l ym i t i gat e herm onet aryl os s es began t o r educe her back- payr ecove r y . I tm er el yconcl uded thatA ppel l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o m i t i gat e damages compl et el ybarr ed al l m onet aryr el i ef. W e r ej ect ed thi s r eas oni ng i n T ay l orM i l k, hol di ng th a t: T he pl ai n l anguage of s ect i on 2000e- 5 s how s thatamount s thatcoul d have b e e n e a rn e d w ith re a so n a b le d ili g e n c e sh o u ld b e u se d to reduce or decrea se a bac k payaw ar d, nott o w hol l ycutoff the r i ghtt o anyback pa y . See 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( g) ( 1) ; s ee a l s o T ubar i L t d. , I nc. , 959 F. 2d at453- 54; A na s t a s i o, 83 8 F. 2d a t70 8- 09 ; 2 DA N B. D O BB S, LA W O F RE M ED I ES § 6 . 1 0 (4), at 22 1 -22 (2d ed . 1 9 9 3 ). F u rth erm o re, D ef en d an t’ s “no- m i t i gat i on- no back pa y ” ar gum enti s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he “make w h o le” p u rpo se u n d erly ing T it le V II. 6 4 F . 3 d at 86 6 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). S im il arly , w e c an n o t agre e w ith the D istri ct C o u rt t hat an app el l ant’ s fai l ure t o m i t i gate her m on et aryl osses ip so fa c to b ars a ll m o n etary r el i ef i n t he form of bac k- pay . I n T ay l orM i l k, w e not ed thatback- pays houl d be deni ed o n lyfo r reaso n s w h ich, i f a p p li ed g en era ll y , w o u ld n o t frustrate the c en tr al st atuto ry p u rp o se s o f

T itl e V II. Id . O n th e re c o rd b e f o re u s it is d if

f icu lt, if n o t im p o ss ib le, to concl ude w hetherornotal l back pa ys houl d have be en barr ed. T he rul i ng adver s e t o t he p lai n ti ff , there fo re, w as in erro r.15

Fort hes e r eas ons , w e r ever s e both t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatA ppel l ant f a ile d to m itig a te h e r d a m a g e s , a s w e ll a s its g ra n t o f c o m p le te s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W e r emand t hi s cas e forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h thi s O pi ni on.