Opinion ID: 3011732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantial Evidence of Mitigated Damages

Text: Atlantic also contends that by failing to make r easonable efforts to obtain interim employment, Jenkins did not mitigate his damages and Atlantic is, therefor e, not obligated to pay Jenkins back wages. See Tubari , 959 F.2d at 454 (holding that where employee has not exercised reasonable diligence in efforts to secur e employment, employer has established that employee did not pr operly mitigate damages). Once the amount of backpay has been established, the burden to produce evidence of a failure to mitigate is on the employer. Id. at 453. This burden is heavy: A discharged worker is not held to the highest standard of diligence in his or her efforts to secure comparable employment; reasonable exertions ar e sufficient. NLRB v. Mercy Peninsula Ambulance Serv., 589 F.2d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 1979); see also NLRB v. Westin Hotel, 758 F.2d 1126, 1130 (6th Cir . 1985) ([A] wrongfullydischarged employee is only requir ed to make a reasonable effort to mitigate damages, and is not held to the highest standard of diligence); Fabi Fashions, Inc. v. Local 107, 291 N.L.R.B. 586, 587 (1988) ([I]n seeking to mitigate loss of income a backpay claimant is held . . . only to`reasonable exertions in this regard, not the highest standard of diligence' . . . . The principle of mitigation of damages does not require success, it only requir es an honest good faith effort . . . .) (quoting NLRB v. Ar duini Mfg. Corp., 394 F.2d 420, 423 (1st Cir. 1968)). Once again, we r eview the factual determination of the Board regar ding Jenkins' due diligence in seeking interim employment under the standar d of substantial evidence. Westin Hotel, 758 F.2d at 1130. We find that Jenkins' testimony supports the Board's determination that his search for employment was not unreasonable. Jenkins did testify that during the seven 17 month period in question, he was caring for his mother, who was ill. Atlantic argues that this r esponsibility made him unavailable for work. However, Jenkins testified on redirect examination that during the entir e seven months, he continued to seek employment in a variety of ways. Jenkins also noted that he was still caring for his mother when he did find a position, which supports his ar gument that would have accepted full-time work throughout the seven month period in question. Based on his testimony as a whole, we agree with the Board that ther e is substantial evidence that Atlantic has not met its burden of establishing that Jenkins' lack of interim ear nings was indicative of an unreasonable search for employment, and therefore, we find that Atlantic has not established the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate his damages.