Opinion ID: 3009810
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Calculation of Back Pay

Text: As stated, the district court reduced Plaintiff's back pay award by the amount he could have earned with reasonable diligence. In calculating this amount, the district court turned to Defendant's Exhibit 14 -- the Times help-wanted ads. The district court found that substantially equivalent positions were 2 Defendant's reliance on Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177 (1941) and its progeny is also misplaced. In Phelps the Court stated, Since only actual losses should be made good, it seems fair that deductions should be made not only for actual earnings by the worker but also for losses which he willfully incurred. Id. at 198 (emphasis added). Reading on, we think that by losses willfully incurred, the Court was referring to wages that might have been earned. See id. Therefore, Phelps could fairly be read as holding that a deduction from back pay awards should be made for those earnings which could have been earned with reasonable diligence. In addition, we are unpersuaded by Defendant's citation to our decision in Carden v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 850 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1988). First, the Carden court cites Ford Motor Co. in support of its holding. As we have explained in the text, Ford Motor Co. does not support Defendant's no mitigation-no backpay argument. Second, as we read Carden, it seems to support the position that a plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages, as with a plaintiff who has interim earnings, results in a reduction in the back pay award. See id. at 1006. 14 available and paid between $5.00 and $12.00 per hour. It set $8.50 per hour as an average and used it to calculate the set off. In addition, the court included overtime hours in its calculation. We review the district court's back pay calculation for an abuse of discretion. See Shore v. Federal Express Corp., 42 F.3d 373, 377-78 (6th Cir. 1994); Robinson, 982 F.2d at 898. Plaintiff argues that the district court abused its discretion in computing his back pay award. He maintains that the back pay order is contrary to its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In its findings, the court stated, Defendant's Exhibit 14 and other evidence establishes that minimum wage jobs were available . . . . Appendix at 91A. (emphasis added). Plaintiff contends that the court was bound to use the minimum wage, and not the higher wage actually used, in reducing his back pay award. The evidence indicates that a number of substantially similar positions were available, and those positions paid more than minimum wage. Although the district court stated that minimum wage positions were available, the record supports its decision to use a higher wage. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating Plaintiff's back pay and the set off. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in not awarding prejudgment interest on this award. We turn now to that issue.