Opinion ID: 2997310
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Promotion or Front Pay

Text: “A Title VII victim is presumptively entitled to full relief.” Hutchison v. Amateur Elec. Supp., Inc., 42 F.3d 1037, 1044 (7th Cir. 1994). The award of either promotion or front pay are equitable remedies left to the district court’s discretion, but such discretion must be guided by legal principles. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 416 (1975). The district court must exercise its equitable power in a manner consistent with the objectives of Title VII, see id. at 416, and a major “purpose of Title VII [is] to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination,” id. at 418. The district court’s discretion is bound by the dictates of Title VII, and, accordingly, we shall approve the denial of equitable relief only if that denial does not frustrate Title VII’s objective of making the plaintiff whole. See Gunby v. Pennsylvania Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 1108, 1123 (3d Cir. 1988). To make the plaintiff whole, promotion to the position the plaintiff would have held absent the discrimination is often the preferred remedy, and courts should award a promotion when doing so is feasible. See Bruso, 239 F.3d at 861; see also Richerson v. Jones, 551 F.2d 918, 923 (3d Cir. 1977) (holding that the district court could have awarded a retroactive promotion if it had found that the plaintiff would have been promoted but for the unlawful discrimination). However, awarding a promotion may create hostility or friction in the work environment. See Bruso, 239 F.3d at 861. In these situations, courts are not required to grant such relief; indeed, under certain conditions, such an award is an inappropriate remedy. See id.; Downes v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 41 F.3d 1132, 1141 (7th Cir. 1994). As an alternative, the district court has discretion to award front pay in order to make the plaintiff whole. See Bruso, 239 F.3d at 862. 12 No. 02-4295 An award of front pay seeks to place the plaintiff in the same position he would have occupied had he actually been promoted. Id. The district court ordered neither a promotion nor front pay for Officer Miles. We must determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying both equitable remedies after a jury had found in favor of Officer Miles on his retaliation claim.
We must ascertain the scope, and corresponding restrictive impact, of the jury verdict on the district court’s factual findings. It is settled practice that “[w]here both legal and equitable relief are sought by a plaintiff, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial requires that the legal claims be tried first, to a jury.” Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 585 F.2d 821, 844 (7th Cir. 1978) (citing Beacon Theaters v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959)). After a trial on the legal issues, any issues necessarily and actually decided by the jury are foreclosed under settled principles of collateral estoppel from subsequent reconsideration by the district court. The court may not make findings “contrary to or in- consistent with the jury’s resolution . . . of that same issue as implicitly reflected in its general verdict . . . on the damages claim.” Id. (quoting Florists’ Nationwide Tel. Delivery Network v. Florists’ Tel. Delivery Ass’n, 371 F.2d 263, 271 (7th Cir. 1967)). The judge is bound by the issues necessarily decided by the jury, and, therefore, the jury’s determination often affects the judge’s disposition of the accompanying equitable claim. See Pals v. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 499 No. 02-4295 13 (7th Cir. 2000); Lincoln v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 697 F.2d 928, 934 (11th Cir. 1983). However, when the basis of the jury’s verdict is unclear, each of the potential theories supporting the verdict is open to contention “unless this uncertainty be removed by extrinsic evidence showing the precise point involved and determined.” Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 609 (1876). Therefore, when several issues have been litigated, and the jury may have supported its verdict by finding in the plaintiff’s favor on any one of the issues but which one is not clear, the court is free to determine the basis of the jury’s verdict unless extrinsic evidence clearly 5 resolves the issue. See id. In finding for Officer Miles on the retaliation claim, the jury answered in the affirmative a verdict form that asked whether Officer Miles had “proven that his complaints of discrimination were, more likely than not, a motivating factor in the decision of the defendant, State of Indiana, to transfer him to the Records Division or fail to promote him?” R.142 at 39. Because of the phrasing of the special verdict inquiry, the jury verdict can be read in three possible ways. The jury could have found retaliation in the transfer of Officer Miles to the Records Division, retaliation in failing to promote Miles, or retaliation in both the reassignment 6 and failure to promote. If the jury only found retaliation in 5 See also Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 585 F.2d 821, 844 (7th Cir. 1978) (noting that the complexity of issues before the jury could not be said necessarily to foreclose any issue, but holding that reading the evidence and the jury instructions together, the verdict had to include a finding on market allocation). 6 Reviewing the evidence in light of the jury instructions does not foreclose any of the three possibilities. Officer Miles complained of race discrimination in 1995, before he was reassigned to the (continued...) 14 No. 02-4295 the reassignment to a position that lacked any supervisory responsibility then providing equitable relief of supervisory responsibility would make Officer Miles whole without the need for either a promotion or front pay. By contrast, if the jury had found retaliation in failing to promote, Officer Miles, then the provision of supervisory duties alone would not make Officer Miles whole. The jury found retaliation, but did not reveal the basis for that finding.
7 Acknowledging the ambiguity in the jury’s verdict, the district court proceeded to determine that Superintendent Carraway, the current Superintendent, had not acted out of racial animus or retaliatory motive when he had not promoted Officer Miles from the rank of First Sergeant to 8 Captain. Fairly read, the district court’s order noted that the 6 (...continued) Records Division and during a time when he was not promoted. Both employment actions occurred after Officer Miles’ complaints, therefore, leaving open the possibility that the jury’s finding of retaliation was based on either premise or both. 7 The district court noted that, “although, the jury found Defendant liable on Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation, it is not clear from the jury verdict whether the jury’s finding of retaliation was based upon Defendant’s failure to promote Plaintiff or the fact that Jennings, the Defendant’s former Superintendent, reassigned him to the Records division.” R.170 at 9. 8 Officer Miles emphasizes a connection between Carraway’s claim that Miles lacked loyalty and the derogatory racial statements made to Carraway that Miles complained about. He summarizes testimony from Superintendent Carraway that, he asserts, indicates that the racial comment played a role in his relationship with (continued...) No. 02-4295 15 Superintendent had the authority, as a matter of discretion, to make promotions to the rank of Captain and above and that the Superintendent therefore was permitted to use his estimation of an officer’s loyalty to him in making such promotions. The court supported its conclusion by noting that Superintendent Carraway had testified that he did not believe Officer Miles would be loyal to him or his administration. The court’s findings establish that the retaliation suffered by Officer Miles was with respect to his assignment to the Records Division without any supervisory responsi- 9 bility. Because the district court determined that the retaliation suffered by Officer Miles was traceable to his assignment to the Records Division, and not to his allegation of discrimination with respect to promotion, the matter of front pay was not really at issue. As we have noted earlier, front pay 8 (...continued) Carraway. The testimony cited does not support this contention or require us to find that the district court’s factual conclusion was clearly erroneous. On direct examination, Carraway was asked whether the “comment played any role . . . in the relationship between the two of you?” He answered: “Probably from his [Officer Miles’] perspective, and I don’t have any facts to think that he’s carried that around with him, but it has not stayed with me, but I do recall the incident. I know he took offense to it. . . . And I think he’s sort of carried that on for a number of years.” R.192 at 475. 9 Our conclusion is supported by the district court’s decision refusing to enjoin future retaliation. See infra Part II.B. The district court found that the State Police had a “new administration” from the one that had retaliated against Officer Miles in the past. R.170 at 12 ¶ 27. The current superintendent did not have improper motives, and therefore there was no concrete danger of future retaliation. 16 No. 02-4295 is an equitable remedy that is awarded in lieu of promotion when promotion is inappropriate or unavailable. See Pals, 220 F.3d at 499. “[F]ront pay is the functional equivalent of [promotion] because it is a substitute remedy that affords the plaintiff the same benefit (or as close an approximation as possible) as the plaintiff would have received had she been [promoted].” Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc., 137 F.3d 944, 952 (7th Cir. 1998). When the district court concluded that promotion was not appropriate because the jury verdict of retaliation properly was interpreted as based on the reassignment rather than on the failure to promote, the court had no need to consider front pay as an alternate to promotion.