Opinion ID: 1202182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the wage loss claim

Text: Mrs. Paxton claims that she was not given full back pay, which she believes should extend from the time she was unlawfully discharged until the Magistrate left office on December 31, 1988. The Administrative Director contends that because Mrs. Paxton failed to mitigate her damages she is not entitled to obtain any wage losses during this period. We address the mitigation issue first. In Syllabus Point 2 of Mason County Board of Education v. State Superintendent of Schools, ___ W.Va. ___, 295 S.E.2d 719 (1982), we held: Unless a wrongful discharge is malicious, the wrongfully discharged employee has a duty to mitigate damages by accepting similar employment to that contemplated by his or her contract if it is available in the local area, and the actual wages received, or the wages the employee could have received at comparable employment where it is locally available, will be deducted from any back pay award; however, the burden of raising the issue of mitigation is on the employer. [7] This same rule applies to recovery of wage loss in our human rights cases, as we stated in Bishop Coal Co. v. Salyers, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 380 S.E.2d 238, 246 (1989), where we recognized that back pay is specifically authorized by W.Va.Code, 5-11-10 (1987). Cf. Orr v. Crowder, ___ W.Va. ___, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 981, 105 S.Ct. 384, 83 L.Ed.2d 319 (1984). The Administrative Director's argument is flawed because it fails to recognize that the employer has the burden of proving that the employee failed to mitigate damages. We referred to the employer's burden in both Syllabus Point 2 of Mason County Board of Education, and in the discussion in the text: The authorities have pointed out that `duty' in this context is an inaccurate mode of expression. 11 S. Williston, Contracts § 1359 (3d Ed.1968); 5 A. Corbin, Contracts § 1095 (1964). The employee is in fact under no affirmative `duty' to seek employment; he may seek it or not, at his pleasure. However, should employment similar to that contemplated by his breached contract be locally available to him, he will be charged, in mitigation of his damages, the amount of the salary he would have earned at that employment....       ... While mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the party that has breached the contract, nonetheless, the wrongfully discharged employee who has not secured employment must be prepared to demonstrate that he or she did not make a voluntary decision not to work, but rather used reasonable and diligent efforts to secure acceptable employment. ___ W.Va. at ___, 295 S.E.2d at 724-26. In this case, there was no evidence that there were comparable jobs available in Mrs. Paxton's locality. The only asserted available comparable job was an opening in the sheriff's office caused when the Magistrate hired an employee of the sheriff's office as Mrs. Paxton's replacement. There appears to have been no testimony offered about the comparability of the two jobs, or whether Mrs. Paxton would have been hired. At the time the opening became available, Mrs. Paxton was still recovering from her pregnancy. Mrs. Paxton and her husband testified about their efforts to find available comparable work in the locality and that none existed. We agree with the holding from one of the leading federal cases in this area, Rasimas v. Michigan Department of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 623-24 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 950, 104 S.Ct. 2151, 80 L.Ed.2d 537 (1984): Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case [of discrimination] and presents evidence on the issue of damages, the burden of producing sufficient evidence to establish the amount of interim earnings or lack of diligence shifts to the defendant.... The Defendant may satisfy his burden only if he establishes that: 1) there were substantially equivalent positions which were available; and 2) the claimant failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such positions.... (Citations omitted). See also Sellers v. Delgado Community College, 839 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.1988); E.E. O.C. v. Exxon Shipping Co., 745 F.2d 967 (5th Cir.1984); Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540 (6th Cir.1989); Department of Civil Rights v. Horizon Tube Fabricating, Inc., 148 Mich.App. 633, 385 N.W.2d 685 (1986). We find this holding compatible with the ruling in Mason County Board of Education, supra . We do not believe that the defendants met their burden of proving that Mrs. Paxton failed to mitigate her damages.
A related issue is the duration of Mrs. Paxton's claim for wage loss. For reasons that are not entirely clear from the record, the HRC, in its January 29, 1990 order, awarded back pay from October, 1981, to August 14, 1985, the date Mrs. Paxton was ordered to be reinstated by the HRC. Because she was not reinstated, Mrs. Paxton asserts that back pay should be awarded until December 31, 1988, the date the Magistrate retired from office. In its order of March 16, 1988, the circuit court directed that Mrs. Paxton be reinstated within thirty days. A request to stay the order was denied, and Mrs. Paxton appeared for reinstatement at the Magistrate's office on April 17, 1988. Her request was denied. Mrs. Paxton states that she did not actively seek employment after the August, 1985 HRC reinstatement order because she believed she would be reinstated to her position. The HRC cites Orr v. Crowder, supra , for the proposition that a person who has a reasonable expectation of being reinstated is not required to look for work. Orr does not stand for such a proposition, although it does contain this sentence: Mrs. Orr did not make any job applications during the year of her terminal contract because she believed that she would eventually be reinstated to her position. ___ W.Va. at ___, 315 S.E.2d at 609. However, this statement is clarified by the following sentence, where we pointed out that a duty to mitigate did not exist while Mrs. Orr was still employed: We fail to see how Mrs. Orr can be accused of failing to fulfill her duty to mitigate damages by not applying for other jobs at a time in which she was still employed. ___ W.Va. at ___, 315 S.E.2d at 609. The critical point is that the employer failed to produce any evidence before this Court that there was comparable work available for Mrs. Paxton in Clay County at any time, including after August 15, 1985. We therefore find that the HRC erred in not calculating the wage loss to December 31, 1988.