Opinion ID: 1267359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Amount of front pay award

Text: The Court of Appeals held the front pay award for nineteen years was highly speculative and unsupported by the record. It then held, without explanation, that under its view of the preponderance of the evidence, four years' front pay was a more appropriate award. Petitioner contends the evidence supports the award because petitioner testified she would have worked at Waffle House until she retired at age sixty-five. [4] In considering the issue of front pay, federal courts have recognized its speculative character and therefore give wide latitude to the trial court. Duke v. Uniroyal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1413 (4th Cir.1991); Deloach v. Delchamps, Inc., 897 F.2d 815 (5th Cir.1990). As stated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: The infinite variety of factual circumstances that can be anticipated do not render any remedy of front pay susceptible to legal standards for awarding damages. Duke, 928 F.2d at 1424. Accordingly, where the trial court has used permissible bases for awarding front pay, no abuse of discretion will be found. Duke, supra ; Deloach, supra . The factors that may be considered in awarding front pay include the length of prior employment, the permanency of the position held, the nature of the work, and the age and physical condition of the employee, along with other factors affecting the employer-employee relationship. Reneau v. Wayne Griffin & Sons, Inc., 945 F.2d 869 (5th Cir.1991). Evidence of future employment prospects may also be considered. Nichols, supra . Front pay is awarded as a complement or as an alternative to reinstatement. Duke, 928 F.2d at 1424. If reinstatement is shown to be infeasible, for instance because of a hostile atmosphere, front pay may be awarded in lieu thereof or to reimburse the employee until the time of reinstatement. See generally Pollard, 532 U.S. at 853-54, 121 S.Ct. 1946. Under the FMLA, an employee is entitled to reinstatement upon return from leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1)(A). Once an employee proves she was denied reinstatement, the employer must prove the employee would have been laid off in any event for some other reason in order to defeat a claim for reinstatement. Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955 (10th Cir.2002); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a) (An employer must be able to show that an employee would not otherwise have been employed at the time reinstatement is requested in order to deny restoration to employment.). Similarly, the employer must bear the burden of proving the employee is not entitled to front pay, which is awarded in lieu of reinstatement, if the employee seeks front pay rather than reinstatement. It is uncontested petitioner was denied reinstatement upon her return from FMLA leave. She claimed front pay based on her entitlement to reinstatement. It was Waffle House's burden to show petitioner would have been terminated for an unrelated reason while on FMLA leave, or that her continued employment would have been limited, in order to defeat or reduce the claim for front pay; in the alternative, Waffle House could have asserted the feasibility of reinstatement in lieu of a front pay award. Waffle House failed to carry its burden on this issue. We defer to the trial judge's judgment and affirm the award of front pay. The Court of Appeals's decision vacating the award is reversed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. TOAL, C.J., WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.