Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/115/1442/568350/
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 21:24:05
Document Index: 253808436

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 767']

Ronald K. Mason, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Sam Scott, and Terry Young,defendants-appellants-cross-appellees,andjames Orbison, Gilbert Gibson, Mick Lafevers, Jim Scott,john Gibbs, James Beach, and Alan Freeman, Defendants, 115 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1997 › Ronald K. Mason, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Sam Scott, and...
Ronald K. Mason, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Sam Scott, and Terry Young,defendants-appellants-cross-appellees,andjames Orbison, Gilbert Gibson, Mick Lafevers, Jim Scott,john Gibbs, James Beach, and Alan Freeman, Defendants, 115 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1997)
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 115 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1997) June 11, 1997
While this appeal and cross-appeal were pending, Young's counsel notified us that Young had sought protection under the Bankruptcy Act. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1), a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay ofthe commencement or continuation ... of a judicial ... proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.
We directed the parties to advise this court as to their views of the impact of § 362(a) (1) upon this appeal and cross-appeal. Only Mason responded to this order. He argues that Young's bankruptcy does not stay the defendants' appeal because that appeal is not a proceeding against the debtor. Mason further contends that § 362(a) (1) need not stay his cross-appeal with respect to the OTA and Scott because the automatic stay provisions do not apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants. Mason concedes, however, that § 362(a) (1) may stay his cross-appeal with respect to Young.
We agree with Mason's assessment. First, this circuit has held that § 362(a) (1) does not prevent a debtor from commencing or continuing his own appeal. Chaussee v. Lyngholm (In re Lyngholm), 24 F.3d 89, 91-92 (10th Cir. 1994). Thus, Young's bankruptcy has no affect on our disposition of the appeal brought by Young, Scott, and the OTA. Second, "the rule followed by this circuit and the general rule in other circuits is that the stay provision does not extend to solvent codefendants of the debtor." Oklahoma Federated Gold & Numismatics, Inc. v. Blodgett, 24 F.3d 136, 141 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza Partners, 747 F.2d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 1984). Neither Young nor his co-defendants have suggested any reason for us to depart from this rule in this case and, under these circumstances, we do not find departure essential to serve the policies underlying § 362(a) (1). Accordingly, we decide the issues presented by Mason's cross-appeal with respect to the OTA and Scott, but stay further proceedings in the cross-appeal with respect to Young. See Croyden Assocs. v. Alleco, Inc., 969 F.2d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 1992) (staying further proceedings with respect to debtor, but deciding the issues raised on appeal with respect to the co-defendants).
The OTA,4 Scott, and Young argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law on each of Mason's claims. We review de novo the district court's determination of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same standard as the district court. Haines v. Fisher, 82 F.3d 1503, 1510 (10th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, judgment as a matter of law is warranted only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences supporting the party opposing the motion. Id. "We do not weigh the evidence, pass on the credibility of the witnesses, or substitute our conclusions for that of the jury. However, we must enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of the moving party if 'there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis ... with respect to a claim or defense ... under the controlling law.' " Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1546-47 (10th Cir.) (citations omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 297, 136 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1996).
First, the defendants contend there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on Mason's section 1983 political patronage claim. The First Amendment protects public employees from discrimination based upon their political beliefs, affiliation, or non-affiliation unless their work requires political allegiance. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 68-69, 110 S. Ct. 2729, 2733-34, 111 L. Ed. 2d 52 (1990); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 513, 100 S. Ct. 1287, 1292, 63 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1980). Here, the defendants do not argue that the position of principal assistant at the OTA requires political allegiance. Thus, to have prevailed on his political discrimination claim, Mason was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his non-affiliation with, or lack of support by, the Democratic party was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor behind his dismissal. Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1392 (10th Cir. 1990); Brown v. Reardon, 770 F.2d 896, 899 (10th Cir. 1985); LaRou v. Ridlon, 98 F.3d 659, 661 (1st Cir. 1996).5
Furthermore, the jury was entitled to disbelieve Young's testimony regarding the independence of his decision-making. The jury may have found it peculiar that Young would hire as his principal assistant a person he barely knew and had never interviewed. They may have found incredible Young's claim that even though he spoke with Scott, the personnel chairman, on March 19, Young never mentioned the fact that he planned to terminate the OTA's Chief Financial Officer on March 22. The jury also was entitled to disbelieve Scott's denials and conclude that Scott in fact accomplished what he had earlier threatened--namely, to terminate Mason and hire Beach. See Anthony v. Sundlun, 952 F.2d 603, 606 (1st Cir. 1991) ("Notwithstanding a person's disclaimers, a contrary state of mind may be inferred from what he does and from a factual mosaic tending to show that he really meant to accomplish that which he professes not to have intended.").
The defendants argue, however, that political patronage could not have caused Mason's discharge because Young planned to terminate Mason in any event as part of a legitimate reorganization. This argument fails for at least two reasons. First, the jury may simply have disbelieved Young's testimony regarding his reorganization plans. Second, even if the jury did believe there was a legitimate motive behind Mason's discharge, it still may have concluded that other illegitimate factors also motivated the decision. Mason was not required to prove that political patronage was the sole cause behind his discharge. Rather, once Mason proved political patronage was a motivating factor behind his dismissal, the burden of persuasion shifted to the defendants to prove, as an affirmative defense, that the discharge would have occurred regardless of any discriminatory political motivation. Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S. Ct. 568, 576, 50 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1977); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 250, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 1790, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989) (" 'The employer is a wrongdoer; he has acted out of a motive that is declared illegitimate by the statute. It is fair that he bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated ....' " (quoting NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 403, 103 S. Ct. 2469, 2475, 76 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1983))). The defendants never requested a jury instruction on such an affirmative defense and, in any event, we cannot say the record compels the conclusion that Mason would have been dismissed even absent the discriminatory motivation. See Acevedo-Diaz v. Aponte, 1 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 1993). The district court did not err in denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the section 1983 claim.
Oklahoma state law forbids an employee's discharge for refusal to participate in an illegal activity, when that discharge is coupled with a showing of bad faith, malice or retaliation. Groce v. Foster, 880 P.2d 902, 904-05 (Okla.1994). To warrant submission of such a wrongful discharge claim to the jury, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the discharge was significantly motivated by the plaintiff's refusal to violate the law. White v. American Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1414, 1421 (10th Cir. 1990). The defendants contend that Mason failed to meet this burden. We disagree.
At trial, Mason presented evidence that he openly opposed the use of surplus funds for the construction of the Coweta Toll Plaza. Mason testified that when Young learned of this opposition, he told Mason that Scott would be very upset. Jim Berry testified that, less than a week before Mason's discharge, Scott threatened to "get a new Chief Financial Officer" if Mason continued to oppose the toll plaza. Similarly, Mason testified that just six days before his discharge Scott told him, " [I]f you continue to obstruct this [toll plaza] project, I'll have your job." Three days later, Scott met with Young and a written plan to discharge Mason was completed. These direct threats of retaliation, coupled with the timing of the discharge, sufficiently support the jury's conclusion that retaliation against Mason for his opposition to illegal activity significantly motivated his discharge. See Wallace v. Halliburton Co., 850 P.2d 1056, 1059 (Okla.1993) (timing may be evidence of a retaliatory discharge). Though both Scott and Young vehemently denied any retaliatory motive, it was for the jury to weigh and assess the evidence.6
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether a corporate officer, director or other employee can be held liable for tortiously interfering in a corporate contract.8 We are convinced, however, that corporate employees can be found liable under Oklahoma law for tortious interference with a corporate contract. See Johnson, 802 P.2d at 1297 (suggesting a tortious interference claim could be stated against the supervisor who actually made the decision to terminate the plaintiff). As with any tortious interference claim, the determinative issue remains whether the actor's interference was justified, privileged, or excusable. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that "it is not unlawful for one to 'interfere with the contractual relations of another if [this is done] by fair means, if [it is] accomplished by honest intent, and if [it is done] to better one's own business and not to principally harm another.' " Morrow Dev. Corp. v. American Bank & Trust, 875 P.2d 411, 416 n. 21 (Okla.1994) (alterations in original) (quoting Del State Bank v. Salmon, 548 P.2d 1024, 1027 (Okla.1976)). Therefore, a corporate officer's or director's interference with a corporate contract will be privileged only when the interference is undertaken in good faith and for a bona fide organizational purpose. Q.E.R., Inc. v. Hickerson, 880 F.2d 1178, 1184 (10th Cir. 1989) (applying Colorado law); Allison v. American Airlines, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 37, 38 (N.D. Okla. 1953).
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 (1979); see also Morrow, 875 P.2d at 416 (noting the relevance of the Restatement in delineating the elements of tortious interference). When a corporate officer or director seeks the termination of a fellow employee for reasons that violate both public policy and the employee's constitutional rights, that officer or director does not act with an honest intent or for a bona fide organizational purpose, and the factors suggested by the Restatement weigh heavily in favor of finding that such interference is not justified. See, e.g., Petroskey v. Lommen, Nelson, Cole, & Stageberg, 847 F. Supp. 1437, 1450 (D. Minn. 1994), aff'd, 40 F.3d 278 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that an employer's officer or agent may be liable for tortious interference if the motivation underlying the interference was sufficiently improper to establish a claim against the employer for wrongful discharge). Scott's status as an OTA member did not preclude submission of Mason's tortious interference claim to the jury.
The defendants next argue that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the issue of pretext. In reviewing jury instructions, "we consider all the jury heard, and from the standpoint of the jury, decide not whether the charge was faultless in every particular, but whether the jury was misled in any way and whether it had understanding of the issues and its duties to determine these issues." Considine v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 43 F.3d 1349, 1365 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotations and citations omitted). While the instruction as a whole must convey the correct statement of the applicable law, no particular form is essential. Id. We reverse an erroneous jury instruction only when we have substantial doubt whether the instructions, considered as a whole, properly guided the jury in its deliberations. Id.
The defendants contend that the court's pretext instructions allowed the jury to find for Mason solely by disbelieving the defendants' explanation for the discharge. We disagree. The instructions repeatedly and accurately place the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to prove that political patronage and/or retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the employment decision. With respect to pretext, the instructions merely informed the jury that, if it disbelieved the defendants' proffered reason for the discharge, then it may, but need not, infer that an illegitimate motive existed. The jury would be permitted (but not required) to draw such an inference because Mason had already presented sufficient evidence of political patronage and retaliation--i.e., sufficient evidence of a prima facie case--to warrant submission of those claims to the jury. Once Mason presented such evidence, a finding of pretext is simply inferential evidence of discriminatory animus that may aid the jury in answering the ultimate question: Did political patronage and/or retaliation motivate the employment decision? See Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 451 (10th Cir. 1995) ("The defendant fails to appreciate that the Supreme Court has said that discriminatory animus may be inferred from the simple showing of pretext. Thus, a showing of pretext is evidence which allows a jury to infer discriminatory intent.").9
Furthermore, we reject the defendants' additional argument that pretext is relevant in Title VII, but not section 1983 actions. When an employer's intent is the ultimate issue, the jury's disbelief of the employer's proffered reasons for a termination will typically, if not always, be relevant to its ultimate determination. See Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1393-94 (10th Cir. 1990) ("The absence of any legitimate motive for the plaintiff's termination makes it more likely that other motives, such as political patronage, were behind the decision to fire the plaintiff."); Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 27 n. 2 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Though pretext analysis was developed in Title VII cases, ... it is fully applicable to constitutional claims where the issue is whether an improper motive existed ...."); see also Brown v. MFC Finance Co. of Oklahoma, 838 P.2d 524, 527 (Okla.App.1992) (applying pretext analysis to a retaliatory discharge claim).10 In sum, we hold that the court's instruction properly guided the jury, and is not grounds for reversal.
The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in allowing this questioning. At trial, Young flatly denied ever engaging in political patronage hiring during his tenure as Managing Director of the OTA. Without resorting to any extrinsic evidence, counsel for Mason merely attempted to elicit Young's admission that, in fact, he had personally hired Hill and England for political patronage purposes. As the district court correctly noted, such questioning was admissible to impeach Young by contradiction. See United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373, 383 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding that trial court had discretion, under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b) and the doctrine of specific contradiction, to allow questioning designed to elicit witness's admission that he had testified falsely at trial).
"The decision whether misconduct in a trial has been so egregious as to require retrial is largely left to the discretion of the trial court," Angelo v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 11 F.3d 957, 962 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Polson v. Davis, 895 F.2d 705, 711 (10th Cir. 1990)), and we reverse only if the district court clearly abused its discretion. Id. Furthermore, a new trial may be required only if the moving party shows that it was prejudiced by the attorney misconduct. Id.
Having reviewed the record, we find the misconduct was not so pervasive or alarming as the defendants contend. Instead, it played a small role in a trial with many legitimate disputes between counsel over the relevance of several factual matters and the boundaries of orders in limine. Furthermore, the district court gave the jury curative instructions following the most serious misconduct. When counsel improperly broached the topic of whether Mason had received promises of job security, the district court explained to the jury that the court had already determined Mason was an at-will employee. Later, when counsel referred to Scott's involvement in the grand-jury investigation, the district court immediately sustained an objection and instructed the jury to disregard the question. App. Vol. IV at 1050. We presume that juries follow the court's instructions, United States v. Coleman, 7 F.3d 1500, 1506 (10th Cir. 1993), and we have no reason to believe that a different result would have occurred in the absence of the misconduct. The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in determining that a new trial was not warranted.
The jury awarded Mason $185,572.70 in compensatory damages, an amount exactly equal to the back pay Mason requested. Mason moved for a new trial on the issue of compensatory damages, arguing that the jury's failure to award any compensation for his mental anguish demonstrates that the jury ignored the court's instructions, as well as the evidence. The district court denied this motion, concluding that " [u]nder the evidence presented in this case, the jury was entitled to disbelieve the Plaintiff's testimony and award nothing for emotional distress." App. Vol. VI at 1581.
"In reviewing the trial judge's determination that the damages awarded by the jury were not so inadequate as to require a new trial, we are to determine whether the trial judge has abused his discretion." Black v. Hieb's Enters., Inc., 805 F.2d 360, 362 (10th Cir. 1986). No abuse of discretion will be found unless the award is so inadequate that it shocks the judicial conscience and raises an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper cause invaded the trial. Id. Absent such a showing, the jury's finding on damages is inviolate. Id.
We agree with the district court that the jury in this case was entitled to award nothing against the OTA and Scott for Mason's alleged mental anguish. The only evidence presented by Mason regarding such suffering was his own, uncorroborated testimony that since his discharge from the OTA he had experienced depression, estrangement from his family, distrust for others, and similar emotional strains. Mason did not present any expert testimony regarding the cause or severity of his alleged symptoms. Similarly, no family members or friends were called to attest to changes in Mason's behavior. During closing arguments, Mason's counsel did not review the scant evidence offered on the issue of mental anguish, instead telling the jury, "I'm sure you'll remember it." App. Vol. V at 1374.11 Unlike this court, the jury had the opportunity to observe Mason and credit or discredit his testimony regarding his alleged mental anguish. Under such circumstances, we cannot say the jury's refusal to compensate Mason for his alleged mental anguish shocks the judicial conscience, or raises an inference of passion or prejudice. See Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Lynam, 840 F. Supp. 1040, 1050 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1172 (3d Cir. 1994) (finding that the issue of emotional distress was one "easily understood by the jury," and that the jury, in awarding no damages for emotional distress, may simply have disbelieved the plaintiff's uncorroborated evidence on the issue).12
Mason next contends the district court abused its discretion in awarding him only $60,000 in front pay. The district court made this award based on its finding that " [c]onsidering the Plaintiff's work history, education level, his overall employment record, and all other relevant factors before the Court, the Plaintiff could, with reasonable effort, be re-employed in a reasonably comparable position with comparable pay and benefits within two years." App. Vol. VI at 1435 (Mason v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, No. CIV-93-1836-R (W.D. Okla. Oct. 11, 1995)). By contrast, Mason had sought an award of $606,681, an amount premised on the assumption that he would not obtain comparable employment for the next twenty-five years.
Under section 1983, front pay is an equitable, discretionary remedy. Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F.2d 808, 824 (10th Cir. 1989). In determining whether, and how much, front pay is appropriate, the district court "must attempt to make the plaintiff whole, yet the court must avoid granting the plaintiff a windfall." Standley v. Chilhowee R-IV School District, 5 F.3d 319, 322 (8th Cir. 1993); see also Carter v. Sedgwick County, Kansas, 36 F.3d 952, 957 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating, in the context of a Title VII case, that front pay should "make plaintiff whole"). Because determining a front pay award requires the district court to predict future events and consider many complicated and interlocking factors, we review such awards with considerable deference, reversing only for an abuse of discretion. See Starrett, 876 F.2d at 824.
Finally, Mason argues that the district court erred in requiring him to elect a single punitive damage award against Scott.14 The jury awarded Mason $150,000 against Young and $150,000 against Scott on the section 1983 claim, $150,000 against Young and $250,000 against Scott on the wrongful discharge claim, and $300,000 against Scott on the tortious interference claim. Following the verdict, the defendants moved to alter and amend the judgment, requesting, among other things, that the district court " [i]ndicate that the multiple punitive damage awards as to each individual Defendant are alternative rather than cumulative." App. Vol. VI at 1480. Mason opposed this motion, arguing the defendants had failed to object on this basis to the verdict form, which specifically asked the jury to award punitive damages against each defendant on each separate claim. Mason also argued that the punitive damage awards were not duplicative because each of his claims involved different conduct by the defendants.
It is well established that "double recovery is precluded when alternative theories seeking the same relief are pled and tried together." Clappier v. Flynn, 605 F.2d 519, 530 (10th Cir. 1979); see also MidAmerica Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 962 F.2d 1470, 1473 (10th Cir. 1992). "If a federal claim and a state claim arise from the same operative facts, and seek identical relief, an award of damages under both theories will constitute double recovery." U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 1223, 1259 (10th Cir. 1988). Where a jury award duplicates damages, the court, either sua sponte or on motion of a party, should reduce the judgment by the amount of the duplication. Id. at 1259-60. The question of whether damage awards are duplicative is one of fact, reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 1259 n. 53.
Although the rule against double recovery arises most often in the context of compensatory damages,16 it applies to punitive damages as well. For instance, courts have held frequently that a plaintiff may not recover both punitive damages under a state tort law claim and treble damages under a federal statutory claim, where the state and federal claims arise from the same operative facts and merely represent alternative theories of recovery. See, e.g., Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 980 F.2d 171, 218 (3d Cir. 1992); SuperTurf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1283-84 (8th Cir. 1981).
While Scott's failure to raise the issue of potential duplication prior to the jury's retirement would likely have prevented him from raising the issue on appeal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 51,17 we do not believe that it prevented the district court, under these circumstances, from exercising its duty to prevent double recovery in the first instance. As evidenced by this case, however, a district court must exercise caution in determining whether two or more punitive damage awards are duplicative, particularly where Scott was not especially vigilant in protecting against such error. Punitive damages are not designed to compensate the victim, but to punish and deter conduct of the offending party. In some cases, multiple punitive damage awards on overlapping theories of recovery may not be duplicative at all, but may instead represent the jury's proper effort to punish and deter all the improper conduct underlying the verdict. See Robertson Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 14 F.3d 373, 383 (8th Cir. 1993) (affirming separate punitive damage awards on overlapping tortious interference and fraud claims where the "nature, extent, and enormity of the wrong, [and] the intent of the party committing it" differ with respect to each of the awards). Here, although the district court was correct in noting that Mason's discharge is "at the core" of all of his claims, it is clear the jury found the discharge was motivated by two distinct, illegal factors: (1) political discrimination; and (2) retaliation for Mason's refusal to violate state law. One motivation violated Mason's constitutional rights, while the other violated Oklahoma public policy. Society has an interest in punishing Scott for both illegitimate intents. In other words, while punitive damage awards on both a section 1983 and wrongful discharge claim may, in some cases, constitute double recovery, such awards are not duplicative per se.
The Supreme Court has explained that in establishing a constitutional violation the plaintiff need not prove that the discharge was punitive or that the employer actually tried to coerce the plaintiff to alter his political views. Instead, it is enough to show that the plaintiff was discharged to make room for a person with political sponsorship the plaintiff lacked. Rutan, 497 U.S. at 71, 110 S. Ct. at 2735. This rule protects against " 'the coercion of belief that necessarily flows from the knowledge that one must have a sponsor in the dominant party in order to retain one's job.' " Id. (quoting Branti, 445 U.S. at 516, 100 S. Ct. at 1293-94)
In arguing the contrary, Mason relies on Brown v. Richard H. Wacholz, Inc., 467 F.2d 18 (10th Cir. 1972), where we ordered a new trial upon determining the jury had disregarded a portion of the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of a permanent physical disability caused by the defendant. In Brown, the jury award the plaintiff an amount exactly equal to his out-of-pocket expenses for hospital and medical bills, even though medical testimony established that the plaintiff's injury caused permanent disability in the right leg. Id. at 19. Unlike the plaintiff in Brown, Mason presented no evidence regarding his pain and suffering other than his own general and subjective opinion
In arguing the court abused its discretion, Mason notes that although the two-year period has nearly expired, he has yet to obtain comparable employment. This does not warrant reversal. We do not expect district courts to predict the future with absolute precision. Furthermore, in determining whether a district court abused its discretion, we review the record before the court at the time of its decision, not events allegedly occurring thereafter. See Boone v. Carlsbad Bancorporation, Inc., 972 F.2d 1545, 1549 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1992)