Opinion ID: 162922
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions on Calculation of Back Pay

Text: We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion. However, we review de novo the question of whether the judge’s instructions, -9- as a whole, properly stated the applicable law and directed the jury to the relevant inquiry. Thomas v. Denny’s, Inc., 111 F.3d 1506, 1509 (10th Cir. 1997). Defendant asserts the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury to reduce back pay damages by what Plaintiff earned from the date he was rejected from the position at Kittrell until the date of trial. The court instead instructed that “lost wages” included “the amount plaintiff would have earned in his employment with Defendant if he had been hired at . . . Kittrell . . . June 1993 to June 1, 1994, minus the amount Plaintiff earned from other employment during this period.” Defendant would have applied an aggregate approach to calculation of back pay, allowing earnings in mitigating employment in one period (a year) to reduce wages in other years. Accordingly, in this case, the excess amount earned by Plaintiff at Oceanside subsequent to June 1, 1994, would have offset the back pay award for the prior period of July, 1993, through May, 1994, thereby decreasing Plaintiff’s award to zero. Defendant offered no direct authority applying the aggregate mitigation method; it merely cited Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 871 (10th Cir. 1989), where, in a footnote, we stated “[t]he relevant time period for calculating an award of back pay begins with wrongful termination and ends at the time of trial” (internal quotations omitted). In its Memorandum and Order on back pay, the district court held the jury’s recommendation of $20,000 in lost wages advisory (and therefore not a potential reversible error), because “the amount of back pay awarded to a Title VII plaintiff is - 10 - committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Next, the court calculated back pay through periodic mitigation, taking the amount Plaintiff would have earned for each period and deducting the wages, if any, earned in other employment during that period. Thus, earnings in one particular period which exceeded the amount Plaintiff would have earned absent discrimination did not operate to reduce the back pay award for any other period.2 Rejecting the aggregate approach, the court explained: In this particular case . . . plaintiff actually earned more money in his replacement employment than he would have if he had been hired by defendant. Defendant argues, therefore, that plaintiff has in essence mitigated his back pay award to zero, for in totality he has no apparent financial loss. This aggregate approach to mitigation does not take in to consideration any loss suffered at a particular point in time. . . . While the aggregate approach endorsed by defendant seeks equity in the long run, such an approach in this case fails to adequately satisfy the very real and concrete period injuries sustained by plaintiff. Calculating lost wages by the periodic mitigation method is well supported in case law. See, e.g., Darnell v. City of Jasper, Alabama, 730 F.2d 653, 656-57 (11th Cir. 1984) (applying periodic basis under Title VII); Eichenwald v. Krigel’s, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 1531, 1567 (D. Kan. 1995) (same); Hartman v. Duffy, 8 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 1998) (noting “periodic mitigation is the preferred method for determining back pay liability in discrimination cases”). Given the district court’s careful comparison of the 2 Note 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(g) endorses neither the periodic nor aggregate approach, providing only that “[i]nterim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable.” The goal of the statute is to make the plaintiff whole. - 11 - two methods and final calculation (and assuming, arguendo, the jury instructions on back pay are subject to our review), the district court acted within the scope of its equitable discretion in awarding Plaintiff $21,251 in back pay.