Opinion ID: 200478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sjöström

Text: 21 SPC challenges the district court's ruling that it is liable to Sjöström for nine months termination pay in his position as consulting superintendent. The district court found that Sjöström's position as consulting superintendent was eliminated as soon as Hudson contracted with ISP, thereby prohibiting Sjöström from working his notice period. 22 SPC first claims that Sjöström was not its employee but was employed by Plus 2. Testimony supports the district court's determination that, while Plus 2 handled the administrative aspects of Sjöström's employment via a contract with SPC (to the benefit of both Sjöström and SPC), the terms of Sjöström's employment continued to be dictated by his original contract with SPC's predecessor, which was renewed annually by the course of dealing of the parties. Sjöström was not a party to the contract between Plus 2 and SPC, and that contract did not supersede his employment contract with POF (which was later assumed by SPC). We find nothing clearly erroneous in the finding that Sjöström was an employee of SPC. 23 SPC also asserts that it was entitled to fire Sjöström because he had disregarded orders to cease making purchases through Marine Trading. While SPC did argue that Sjöström had breached his contract by negligently maintaining the SCOTIA PRINCE, it never before argued that Sjöström was in breach by dealing with Marine Trading. This argument was not raised below and is therefore waived. Brigham v. Sun Life of Can., 317 F.3d 72, 85 (1st Cir.2003). 24 Finally, SPC claims that its damages should be reduced because Sjöström made no effort to mitigate his damages. The contract provided and the district court found that Sjöström's right either to be permitted to work his notice period or to receive compensation in lieu thereof was absolute. Rathje, 2002 WL 389303 at , 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4078, at  43. Sjöström therefore did not have a duty to mitigate damages.