Opinion ID: 764814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pension Credits

Text: 24 Finally, Banks challenges the district court's denial of her post-verdict motion for the restoration of her lost pension benefits. The district court ruled that what it termed damages for the loss of pension benefits amount to legal rather than equitable relief, and must accordingly be awarded by the jury rather than the judge. See generally Dominic, 822 F.2d at 1257 (under the ADEA, the jury finds facts relating to legal claims, whereas the court makes findings relating to equitable claims). Because Banks waited until after the jury's verdict to request such relief, the court reasoned that her claim was untimely. 25 Had Banks actually requested money damages for lost pension benefits, the district court might well have been right to deem that form of relief legal, and to rule Banks's post-verdict application untimely. But it is clear from Banks's motion as well as her supporting memorandum of law that she sought the restoration of benefits ... including ... pension credits. And we have squarely held that lost pension rights ... fall within the category of equitable relief. Geller, 635 F.2d at 1036. Unlike damage awards, which are payable to the plaintiff, pension benefits are paid into pension annuity funds. They merely replace the benefits that would have accrued during the [period] of employment wrongfully denied to [the plaintiff]. Id. Thus, the district court erred in ruling that Banks's claim for pension benefits should have been presented to the jury, and that it was therefore untimely when presented in a post-verdict motion. 6 26 We conclude that Banks's motion was properly presented to the district court, and that its merits should be considered by the judge on remand.