Opinion ID: 2371693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reinstatement and Front Pay

Text: Finally, we affirm the trial justice's denial of Shoucair's motions for reinstatement or, in the alternative, for front pay. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial justice's determination that Shoucair is not now qualified for a position at Brown because he has not had any significant experience in the constantly evolving field of engineering for almost ten years. Professor Shoucair argues that if he is unqualified at present, it is because Brown's unwarranted denial of his tenure has so damaged his reputation that he has been unable to find a suitable position anywhere in the field of engineering. But Shoucair's own testimony reveals that he cannot recall if he even has applied for a position of any sort since 1997. The trial justice predicated her refusal to order Shoucair's reinstatement at Brown on his failure to keep current in his field. We agree with the trial justice that Kamberos v. GTE Automatic Electric, Inc., 603 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1979), in which the court opined that reinstatement is not appropriate unless the person discriminated against is presently qualified to assume the position sought, is analogous and applicable to Shoucair's situation. In Kamberos, the plaintiff sought a position as a corporate attorney, but the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she had acquired any significant corporate law experience in the nineteen years after she was wrongfully passed over for a job. Id. Noting that [t]he field of corporate law is not static and [had] changed significantly in the intervening years, the court refused to issue a hiring order as part of the plaintiff's remedy. Id. The science of engineering undoubtedly has advanced in numerous ways while Shoucair has been out of the loop; accordingly, we hold that the trial justice exercised sound discretion in declining to order his reinstatement at Brown. Similarly, we endorse the trial justice's ruling that front pay is not appropriate in Shoucair's case. We agree with her reference to Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 364 F.3d 368, 380 (1st Cir. 2004), in which the court explained: [a]wards of front pay    are generally entrusted to the [trial judge's] discretion and are available in a more limited set of circumstances than back pay. This Court treats with great deference the trial justice's finding that Shoucair failed to expend sufficient effort to mitigate his damages. In his appeal for front pay, Shoucair relies on the same arguments we rejected in affirming the reduction of his back-pay award, i.e., that the black mark placed indelibly on Shoucair's résumé by his failure to gain tenure effectively ended his chances at ever attaining another university professorship, and that he was not required to seek work outside academia to mitigate his damages. We are satisfied, however, that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in denying Shoucair's request for the equitable remedy of front pay in light of the remedial relief he had otherwise been awarded. Accordingly, we affirm the trial justice's denial of Shoucair's motion for front pay.