Opinion ID: 777989
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mitigation of Compensatory Damages

Text: 73 NAP argues that Duty failed to mitigate his alleged damages by attempting to find work, thereby excluding him from eligibility for back pay. 74 In calculating the compensatory damages award, the jury considered (1) evidence that Duty earned considerably less from his farm work than he did from his NAP job, (2) the affidavit from Duty's vocational consultant classifying Duty as disqualified from other jobs on the basis of his disability, and (3) the lack of any evidence submitted by NAP showing that any jobs were available for which Duty would have been qualified. As a result, it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that NAP did not meet its burden of proving that Duty failed to mitigate his damages. Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that the jury reasonably could disregard Duty's alleged failure to mitigate his damages in calculating the amount of the back pay award.