Opinion ID: 380460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Back-Pay Awards

Text: 86 This issue concerns the sufficiency of evidence with respect to the specific back pay awards. Again, because of our previous decision to remand the hiring claims, we cannot review this part of the trial court's decision as to that portion of the class. However, we can review the claims as they pertain to Falcon, since we have upheld his request for relief. 21 87 The appellees also appeal from the trial court's decision on this issue. Again, we will only review those specific complaints that pertain to Falcon. 22 88 The appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to show what salaries the employees would have earned at General. See note 21. It is unclear how much of this claim is directed at the award to Falcon. In its Phase II opinion, the trial court calculated Falcon's earnings on the assumption that he would have been promoted to Field Inspector in 1972. See Part III. 23 We think there was clearly enough evidence of what Falcon would have earned to support the trial court's findings. 89 As to those contentions of the plaintiffs which are relevant only to Falcon, the trial court found that damages should be granted only up to the end of the Phase I trial, since it found that the defendant, by that date, had remedied the discriminatory practices which gave rise to the litigation. As to Falcon, we do not find that decision to be clearly erroneous, intimating no judgment on the other class claims. In such matters, the trial court has broad discretion. Cf. Fitzgerald v. Sirloin Stockade, Inc., 22 EPD P 30,724 (10th Cir. 1980).