Opinion ID: 163288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Set Aside or Reduce the Judgment

Text: 67 This court reviews the district court's ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir.1997). Accordingly, this court will not reverse the decision of the district court unless the district court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances. Id. 68 The jury awarded Minshall back pay in the amount $212,326.00 and found that the award of back pay should not be reduced for earnings and benefits acquired since Minshall's termination nor by any failure to mitigate damages. In a post-trial order, the district court awarded Minshall front pay in the amount of $137,500.00. McGraw-Hill argues that it is entitled to a reduction in the judgment for front pay and back pay because Minshall's evidence of mitigation is inadequate as a matter of law. 69 A claimant need only make a reasonable and good faith effort [to mitigate], and is not held to the highest standards of diligence. Spulak v. K Mart Corp., 894 F.2d 1150, 1158 (10th Cir.1990). Moreover, the burden is on the employer to establish that the claimant did not exercise reasonable diligence. Id. While Minshall chose not to relocate his family, he made telephone calls and sent letters to other television stations in Denver to obtain a job in investigative reporting. After failing to obtain employment as an investigative reporter, Minshall attempted to secure employment in public relations. BVP Media hired Minshall to teach media training. At BVP Media, Minshall earned approximately $70,000 in salary and benefits. Minshall decided to quit this job after approximately one year to work as a self-employed media trainer. While McGraw-Hill argues that Minshall should have attempted to find an investigative reporting job in the national market and should not have left his employment at BVP Media to become self-employed, this court is not satisfied that Minshall failed as a matter of law to make reasonable efforts to mitigate. 70 McGraw-Hill also argues that it is entitled to a reduction in the judgment for front pay because there was insufficient evidence that Minshall would have continued his employment at KMGH as an investigative reporter until his retirement. McGraw-Hill, however, first raised this argument in its reply brief. Therefore, this argument is waived. Coleman v. B-G Maint. Mgmt., 108 F.3d 1199, 1205 (10th Cir.1997) (holding that [i]ssues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived). Nevertheless, after reviewing the record, this court is satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McGraw-Hill's motion to set aside or reduce the judgment for front pay.