Opinion ID: 185639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Damages and Relief

Text: 8 Based on its findings, the district court awarded compensatory damages and equitable relief. First, the court reduced the amount of compensatory damages recoverable to $300,000, the statutory maximum under Title VII for an award against an employer with more than 500 employees. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). The court determine[d] on the facts of this case that $300,000 represent[ed] a fair and appropriate compensatory award pursuant to the statutory cap at 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). In denying GPO's Rule 59(a) and (e) motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, remittitur, the district court rejected the argument that this award of compensatory damages was grossly excessive because the case did not present the `most egregious' instance of unlawful conduct meriting the `maximum amount recoverable under Title VII's statutory cap.' Rather, the court determined that the jury could reasonably view this case as the type of egregious, unlawful conduct that Title VII was designed to remedy. It distinguished this case from Nyman v. FDIC, 967 F.Supp. 1562, 1572 (D.D.C.1997), based on the physical assault of Peyton and GPO's manipulation of the apprentice training rules in order to expel the plaintiff from the training program. It concluded that the $300,000 award neither `shocks the conscience' nor represents a `miscarriage of justice.' 9 The court awarded back pay and future lost earnings (front pay) as equitable relief. It calculated back pay for three periods: January 2-August 14, 1998 (while Peyton was still at GPO); August 14-October 11, 1998 (from termination at GPO until employment by Bowne, Inc.); and October 11, 1998 to Trial (Peyton employed at Bowne, Inc.). It determined Peyton was entitled to an award of back pay in the amount of $78,476.90. The court rejected arguments by appellant GPO that Peyton inadequately mitigated her losses during the August-October period when she was unemployed. Noting that it is the defendant's burden to prove that the plaintiff's efforts to secure employment constituted inadequate effort to mitigate damages, the court conclude[d] that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff inadequately mitigated her losses. 10 In determining that front pay was appropriate, the court first found that it would be futile, ill-advised, and inequitable to order that Ms. Peyton be returned to her old position. Relying on our decision in Barbour v. Merrill, 48 F.3d 1270, 1278 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. dismissed, 516 U.S. 1155, 116 S.Ct. 1037, 134 L.Ed.2d 113 (1996), the district court calculated projected future lost earnings. It found that at the time of trial, Peyton earned $549.90 less per week ($28,594.80 less per year) working for Bowne, Inc., a private printer, than she would as a journeyman proofreader for GPO. Because the court found that Ms. Peyton reasonably expected and intended to work as a proofreader for the GPO until she retired, it awarded her front pay which reflects that the plaintiff will suffer a loss of future earnings totaling $28,594.80 per year until her projected retirement, discounted to the net present value. As Peyton was 34 years old, and her retirement was projected at age 60, the district court ultimately awarded $377,615.72 in front pay. 11 GPO filed the instant appeal challenging the district court's determination of compensatory damages, back pay, and front pay.