Opinion ID: 400928
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reinstatement and Injunction

Text: 19 The ADEA provides that in any action brought to enforce (the Act) the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate ... including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion .... 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (1976). Reinstatement is not a mandatory remedy; it lies within the discretion of the trial court after careful consideration of the particular facts of the case. Combes v. Griffin Television, Inc., 421 F.Supp. 841, 846 (W.D.Okl.1976). Ordinarily a verdict for plaintiff on the age discrimination claim is res judicata on plaintiff's equitable reinstatement claim. Cleverly v. Western Electric Co., 450 F.Supp. 507, 511 (W.D.Mo.1978), aff'd, 594 F.2d 638 (8th Cir. 1979). However, courts have refused to grant reinstatement where the employer continued a reduction in force for permissible business reasons, id., or where discord and antagonism between the parties made it preferable to fashion relief from other available remedies, Combes v. Griffin Television, Inc., supra, at 846-47. 20 Damages in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded in addition to liquidated damages. However, the value of reinstatement is often speculative. 10 Thus, availability of a substantial liquidated damages award may be a proper consideration in denying additional damages in lieu of reinstatement. Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1021-23 (1st Cir. 1979). 21 The trial judge in this case denied reinstatement because he found evidence of acrimony in the record and because he was fully satisfied that (the verdict) has made the plaintiffs whole. Clerk's Record 124. The court noted the testimony of an I. Magnin officer who referred to plaintiff Ritter as a cancer. I. Magnin's numerous attacks during the trial on plaintiffs' abilities support the trial judge's conclusion that plaintiffs and I. Magnin could no longer co-exist in a business relationship that would be productive to the consumer, community or to the business itself. Clerk's Record 125. By virtue of his position in conducting the trial, the judge was peculiarly well-situated to observe the demeanor of plaintiffs and defendants in making this determination. Moreover, in view of the substantial verdict the judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that it had made the plaintiffs whole. 22 Like the reinstatement remedy, injunctive relief is available under the ADEA when appropriate. The trial judge found that the.$2.3 million judgment against I. Magnin, including attorneys' fees, was sufficient to discourage I. Magnin from practicing age discrimination in the future. This finding was not an abuse of discretion.