Court Opinion

ID: 9950419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 21:00:41.588511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:03.340858
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55           Filed: 03/12/2024   Pg: 1 of 30

                                               PUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-2142

        DAVID L. DUVALL,

                     Plaintiff – Appellee,

               v.

        NOVANT HEALTH, INC.,

                     Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. David Shepardson Cayer, Magistrate Judge. (3:19-cv-00624-DSC)

        Argued: December 7, 2023                                        Decided: March 12, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion.
        Judge Agee wrote the opinion in which Judge Quattlebaum and Senior Judge Floyd joined.

        ARGUED: Stephen Montgomery Cox, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA,
        Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellant. S. Luke Largess, TIN FULTON WALKER &
        OWEN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Charles E. Johnson,
        Angelique R. Vincent-Hamacher, Travis S. Hinman, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW &
        HINSON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina; Benjamin R. Holland, Margaret Santen
        Hanrahan, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Charlotte,
        North Carolina, for Appellant.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55          Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 2 of 30

        AGEE, Circuit Judge:

               After a week-long trial, a North Carolina jury found that Novant Health, Inc.

        terminated David Duvall because of his race, sex, or both, in violation of Title VII of the

        Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e–17. In addition to the finding of

        liability, the jury awarded Duvall $10 million in punitive damages. Novant Health moved

        under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law and to set

        aside the punitive damages award, arguing that the evidence adduced at trial was

        insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. It also opposed Duvall’s competing motion for

        back pay and front pay, claiming that he failed to mitigate his damages. Following a

        hearing, the district court denied Novant Health’s motion for judgment as a matter of law;

        granted in part and denied in part Novant Health’s motion to set aside the jury’s award of

        punitive damages, reducing the award to the statutory maximum of $300,000 but otherwise

        finding punitive damages appropriate; and granted Duvall’s motion for back pay and front

        pay. Novant Health now appeals.

               After a careful review of the record, we hold that sufficient evidence was presented

        at trial to sustain the jury’s finding of liability but not its award of punitive damages. We

        also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Duvall back pay and

        front pay. Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for entry of an

        amended judgment consistent with this opinion.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 3 of 30

                                                     I.

                                                    A. 1

               Duvall, a white man, began working for Novant Health in 2013, when Executive

        Vice President and Chief Consumer Officer Jesse Cureton, a black man, hired him as

        Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications. Based in North Carolina, Duvall

        reported directly to Cureton and held the same position throughout his employment with

        Novant Health. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Duvall performed

        exceptionally in his role, receiving strong performance reviews and gaining national

        recognition for himself and the marketing program he developed for Novant Health.

        Despite all that, Cureton fired Duvall in July 2018, a decision that came as a shock to both

        Duvall and his colleagues. Moreover, Novant Health—a multibillion-dollar company with

        tens of thousands of employees and an extensive human resources department—had no

        record of any documented criticism of Duvall’s performance or reasons for his termination.

               Immediately after firing Duvall, Novant Health elevated two of Duvall’s deputies,

        a white woman and a black woman, to take over his duties. It then later hired another black

        woman to permanently replace Duvall.

               Believing Novant Health fired him merely to achieve racial and gender diversity—

        or more specifically, to hit certain diversity “targets,” J.A. 1431—within its leadership,

               1
                We accept and recite the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
        Duvall, as we must in reviewing a post-trial Rule 50(b) ruling. First Union Com. Corp. v.
        GATX Cap. Corp., 411 F.3d 551, 556 (4th Cir. 2005).

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 4 of 30

        Duvall sued his former employer under Title VII and North Carolina state law in federal

        district court. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury heard the following evidence.

                                                     1.

               In 2015, Novant Health President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Carl

        Armato appointed Tanya Blackmon as Senior Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion

        (“D&I”) to develop a “Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan” for Novant Health (the “D&I

        Plan”). J.A. 1365–78. That D&I Plan, which Novant Health’s Executive Team 2 approved,

        consisted of three phases: Phase 1 (“Learn and Engage”) would assess Novant Health’s

        D&I culture, benchmark its D&I levels, and seek to get Novant Health’s Board and

        leadership to commit to using D&I in decision-making. J.A. 1365. Phase 2 (“Develop and

        Influence”) would set goals to “embed diversity and inclusion” in three to five years, with

        a commitment to “adding additional dimensions of diversity to the executive and senior

        leadership teams” and establishing “a system wide decision making process that includes

        a diversity and inclusion lens.” J.A. 1365–66. And Phase 3 (“Leverage”) would evaluate

        the progress toward embedding D&I and “implement strategies and tactics to close

        identified gaps.” J.A. 1368.

               In November 2016, Blackmon, who had since been promoted to Executive Vice

        President and Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, presented a “Business Case” for the

        D&I Plan to Novant Health’s Board. J.A. 160, 1327–64. That presentation established a

               2
                The Executive Team consisted of “the president and CEO and executive vice
        presidents of the company.” J.A. 242.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55        Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 5 of 30

        timeline to develop D&I metrics and “[i]ntentionally integrate” D&I in 2017; to evaluate

        those metrics and Novant Health’s use of a “[D&I] lens” in decision-making in 2018; and

        to fully “embed[]” D&I by 2019. J.A. 1364. Novant Health’s Board approved the Business

        Case and its D&I Plan timeline.

              In February 2018, Novant Health’s Diversity and Inclusion Executive Council

        (“D&I Council”), the body responsible for overseeing and implementing the D&I Plan

        and whose members included Blackmon, Cureton, and Duvall, held its first meeting. At

        that meeting, the D&I Council discussed various models for measuring the success of

        Novant Health’s D&I efforts.

              The D&I Council next met in May 2018 and continued its discussion of D&I

        metrics. In doing so, the council reviewed demographic data on Novant Health’s workforce

        and leadership, which showed a decline in female leaders from 2015 to 2017 (except on

        the Executive Team). It also showed that while 82 percent of Novant Health’s workforce

        was female, only 4 percent of the female workforce comprised Novant Health’s leadership.

        The data further revealed “a higher representation of whites among leadership versus [the]

        workforce,” J.A. 1420, and in particular an increase in white male representation “with

        each level of management,” J.A. 1426. Conversely, the data reflected that “African-

        American representation in management decrease[d] at each level [of management] with

        the exception of the executive team.” J.A. 1423.

              In October 2018, shortly after Cureton terminated Duvall’s employment, the D&I

        Council met again. The minutes from that meeting documented the D&I Council’s

        “Philosophy”: “Our team members should reflect our communities. Our leadership should

                                                    5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55        Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 6 of 30

        reflect our team members and ultimately we want Novant Health’s overall workforce to

        reflect the communities we serve.” J.A. 1430. The minutes also detailed several “comments

        and questions” from Novant Health employees concerning the company’s D&I push and

        its impact on hiring practices. J.A. 1430. Some asked how to “balance” hiring based on

        D&I and hiring based on qualifications or skill, while others raised the issue of “quot[a]s

        and targets.” J.A. 1430–31. In addition to offering suggested responses to such hiring-

        related comments and questions, the minutes recorded the following declaration:

               We, Novant Health, are not interested in meeting quotas; quotas are
               mandated by someone outside of your organization. We want to reach our
               targets, targets are set by the organization, which is within our strategic
               imperatives and making sure our work force reflects the community we
               serve.

        J.A. 1431.

               In February 2019, the D&I Council presented a report prepared by an outside

        consulting group and titled “Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Metrics Framework” to Novant

        Health’s Board. J.A. 1432. The report stated that the first two phases of the D&I Plan had

        “seen great success in using qualitative and quantitative data as drivers to measure and

        track progress” and that Novant Health “aim[ed] to be more explicit on how D&I impacts

        overall business performance.” J.A. 1435 (emphases omitted). The report indicated that

        although Novant Health had made “[p]rogress” in “increas[ing] Black/African American

        representation in leadership roles,” the company still had a gap in black leadership as

        compared to industry benchmarks and census data. J.A. 1442. To address that gap, the

        report recommended a “3-4 percentage point increase” in black leaders over the next three

        years. J.A. 1449.

                                                    6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55        Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 7 of 30

              The same February 2019 report also identified remaining gaps in Hispanic leaders

        and in the Hispanic and Asian workforce and likewise recommended explicit targets to

        close those gaps. In response, Novant Health adopted a long-term financial incentive plan

        that tied executive bonuses, in part, to achieving specific percentages of those groups in

        the workforce by 2021.

              Finally, in September 2019, Blackmon prepared a Phase 3 report that summarized

        the D&I Plan’s progress. The report showed a 3.9 percent decrease in the white workforce

        and a 5.6 percent decline in white leaders from 2016 to 2019, compared to a 2 percent

        increase in the black workforce and a 0.9 percent increase in black leaders over the same

        period. The report also reflected a 21.1 percent increase in female leaders from 2018 to

        2019 alone.

                                                    2.

              Duvall enjoyed much success as Novant Health’s communications and marketing

        head. Having earned a master’s degree from Northwestern University Kellogg School of

        Management and founded his own healthcare marketing agency, Duvall brought

        considerable knowledge and experience to Novant Health when he was recruited to be the

        company’s Chief Marketing and Communications Officer in 2013. And he put that

        knowledge and experience to good use at Novant Health.

              Most notably, Duvall, who had inherited a “very decentralized” marketing program

        at Novant Health, J.A. 607, developed a centralized marketing program for the company—

        effectively Novant Health’s own “marketing agency,” J.A. 608—and hired new talent to

        help implement it. Duvall’s program achieved measurable success for Novant Health’s

                                                    7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142        Doc: 55       Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 8 of 30

        brand, receiving praise from members of Novant Health’s Executive Team, including

        Armato and Chief Operating Officer David Jeff Lindsay. Duvall later presented his

        program at national conferences, where it was likewise lauded by marketing officials in the

        healthcare industry. On top of that, he and his team won several marketing and public

        relations awards on behalf of Novant Health.

               Duvall also received strong annual evaluations throughout his tenure at Novant

        Health. Cureton’s 2016 annual review of Duvall, for example, stated that Duvall “continues

        to le[a]d and build his teams focused on improving patient and consumer growth and

        impact”; that he “brings operational structure, and process to our marketing strategy”; that

        he “[a]lways meets with stakeholders for feedback and collaboration”; and that Cureton

        could not identify any “opportunities for development” for Duvall. J.A. 1526. Duvall also

        received excellent “Engagement” scores, which were derived from survey responses from

        other Novant Health employees, including those who reported directly to Duvall. J.A.

        1583–84.

               Nonetheless, on July 30, 2018—during Phase 2 of the D&I Plan—Cureton called

        Duvall into a conference room and fired him. At the time, Cureton told Duvall simply that

        Novant Health was “going in a different direction.” J.A. 649. With no prior indication that

        his job was in jeopardy, Duvall was understandably “perplexed.” J.A. 1633. And he wasn’t

        the only one. After Cureton circulated an internal memo announcing Duvall’s abrupt

        termination, several employees, including other members of management, expressed their

        shock at the news.

                                                     8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 9 of 30

                Despite what Cureton told Duvall at the time, and despite a total lack of any

        contemporaneous documentation reflecting shortcomings in Duvall’s performance,

        Cureton testified at trial (over three years later) that he fired Duvall because he lacked

        “engagement” and “support from the executive team.” J.A. 864. He said that Duvall first

        damaged his credibility with the company in 2016, when he “froze” and “walked off” stage

        while giving a presentation to Novant Health’s Board, Executive Team, senior leadership,

        and “community boards,” requiring Cureton to step in and continue the presentation on

        Duvall’s behalf. J.A. 396. Aside from this incident, Cureton said that Duvall had declined

        opportunities to speak before the Board and instead delegated that responsibility to his

        subordinates. He also testified that Duvall was absent from two important meetings in

        2018.

                Duvall’s evidence, however, painted quite a different picture.

                As to the 2016 presentation, Duvall testified that he began feeling “nauseous and

        lightheaded,” “very dizzy” and “very faint,” J.A. 619, so he briefly stepped away and sat

        down to regroup. Then, after two doctors present at the meeting examined him, Duvall

        returned to the stage and finished the presentation. Afterward, Cureton sent a text message

        to Duvall saying that “everything’s okay” and that the team “did great.” J.A. 620.

        According to Duvall, that was “the last time it was ever discussed.” J.A. 620. He was never

        reprimanded or even counseled about the incident. Nor was he told that he had lost the

        confidence of Novant Health’s leadership as a result of that incident.

                Concerning Duvall’s absences from the two management meetings, both were the

        product of known and previously existing scheduling conflicts. The first absence was due

                                                     9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 10 of 30

        to a presentation that Duvall was already scheduled to give on Novant Health’s marketing

        program at a national conference, a speaking engagement Cureton knew about and

        approved beforehand. The second absence was due to a family reunion for which Duvall’s

        work calendar showed prescheduled time off. And on both occasions, Duvall had arranged

        for others on his team to attend the meetings and give presentations in his absence. He did

        not receive any complaints, warnings, or even cautionary advice about the conflicts or the

        performance of his team until the time of trial in this case.

               Finally, Duvall presented deposition testimony from Shane Grady, an executive

        recruiter for Johns Hopkins who spoke to Cureton about Duvall in December 2018, a few

        months after Duvall’s termination. As reflected in Grady’s contemporaneous notes,

        Cureton spoke very highly of Duvall and praised his performance at Novant Health. When

        asked why Duvall was let go, Cureton responded that there had been “[l]ots of change in

        [the] last 12 months regarding executive leaders and others” and that there was a “desire to

        bring in new leaders”—a desire “for a different point of view,” for a different “flair.” J.A.

        311. Cureton assured Grady that the decision was “not a reflection of [Duvall’s] doing a

        poor job.” J.A. 311. In fact, Cureton told Grady that he “would hire [Duvall] again.” J.A.

        312.

               But Cureton did not hire Duvall again. Instead, Novant Health elevated two of

        Duvall’s deputies to take over his duties, effectively splitting Duvall’s old position into

        two. The company promoted Kati Everett, a white woman, to Senior Vice President of

        Communications. And it appointed Tammy Jones, a black woman, to serve as Senior Vice

        President of Marketing on an interim basis while Novant Health conducted a national

                                                      10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 11 of 30

        search for a permanent replacement. At the time, Novant Health rated Jones a lower

        performer than Duvall. See J.A. 417. Roughly ten months later, the company hired Vicky

        Free, a black woman, to serve as Senior Vice President of Marketing. Free was one of three

        finalists for the position; the other two finalists were also black women.

               Notably, Duvall was not the only white male executive terminated and replaced by

        a racial minority during Phase 2 of the D&I Plan. Four months earlier, Cureton had fired

        Rick Brajer, a white man whose job performance as Senior Vice President of Business

        Strategy received a “high potential and medium performance” rating. J.A. 402. Cureton

        then assigned Brajer’s duties to a black male employee. 3

                                                      3.

               After he was fired, Duvall “started to look for other work.” J.A. 654. In September

        2018, he was contacted by a recruiter for Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan,

        and the two parties began employment discussions. As those discussions played out over

        the next several months, Duvall was also contacted by recruiters for four other interested

        employers: Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, the University of Miami, and

        Minnesota Fairview. Due to financial and other considerations, Duvall chose to focus on

               3
                 Following Brajer’s and Duvall’s terminations, Cureton also fired Hayes Woollen,
        another white man, eliminating his role altogether and reassigning his duties elsewhere. In
        fact, the jury heard uncontested evidence that Cureton went from seven white male direct
        reports in 2018, to two in 2019, to one in 2020, to zero at the time of trial in 2021. Of these
        seven white men, Cureton fired four, including Duvall, Brajer, and Woollen. Cureton
        testified that the fourth white man he fired was replaced by another white man. He also
        testified that the remaining three white male direct reports were reassigned to another
        supervisor, after which one voluntarily quit and one was fired by someone other than
        Cureton.

                                                      11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 12 of 30

        the opportunities with Henry Ford and Johns Hopkins and withdrew from consideration by

        the other three.

               In April 2019, Henry Ford formally offered Duvall the newly created position of

        Senior Vice President of Public Relations, Marketing, Communications & Chief

        Experience Officer. 4 Duvall accepted the job and started work that June, receiving a

        substantially higher base salary than what he received at Novant Health as well as a sizable

        relocation award and sign-on bonus.

               But Duvall’s time at Henry Ford didn’t last long. Although the uncontested record

        shows that Duvall performed well in his role, he was fired seven months later. Duvall’s

        firing came on the heels of his filing this lawsuit against Novant Health in November 2019,

        which garnered significant media attention. Days after filing suit, Henry Ford’s CEO

        summoned Duvall to his office for “the most hostile, berating conversation [Duvall had]

        ever had.” J.A. 662. Referring to the litigation, the CEO asked Duvall how he could “do

        such a thing.” J.A. 662. He told Duvall that he didn’t “believe” that Henry Ford was “the

        right environment” for him and that there was “a lot of damage repair” he was “going to

        have to do.” J.A. 662. Weeks later, Henry Ford fired Duvall. In its separation agreement

        with Duvall, Henry Ford specified that it had terminated his employment “without cause.”

        J.A. 1690 (emphasis added).

               Before he accepted the position with Henry Ford, Duvall also interviewed with
               4

        Johns Hopkins.

                                                    12
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55          Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 13 of 30

               Now twice fired within eighteen months, Duvall started looking for work again. In

        short order, he was contacted by recruiters for four interested employers: Brigham and

        Women’s/Mass General, Westchester Medical Center, Ohio State University, and Cape

        Fear Medical Center. Duvall withdrew from consideration by Cape Fear given its

        comparatively small size, choosing instead to focus on the other three opportunities. But

        none of them panned out: After Duvall gave each recruiter a “high level . . . overview of

        [his] current situation”—namely, his termination from Novant Health and resulting lawsuit

        and his correlated termination from Henry Ford—the recruiter responded that he or she

        would “get back to [him]” if the respective employer had any interest in further pursuing

        him as a candidate. J.A. 666–67. Duvall never heard back from any of them.

                                                     B.

               Following the district court’s denial of the parties’ cross-motions for summary

        judgment, the case proceeded to trial. 5 The trial lasted seven days and included ten

        witnesses and over 100 exhibits. Before the case was submitted to the jury, Novant Health

        orally moved for judgment as a matter of law on all claims. The district court denied the

        motion. The jury then returned a liability verdict for Duvall, finding that his race and/or

        sex was a “motivating factor” in Novant Health’s decision to fire him and that the company

        had not shown that it would have made the same decision regardless of his race and/or sex,

        and awarded him $10 million in punitive damages. J.A. 1138.

               5
                At the outset of the litigation, the parties consented to jurisdiction by a magistrate
        judge, and the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer. For ease of reference,
        we refer to the magistrate judge as the “district court.”

                                                     13
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 14 of 30

               Novant Health then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a

        motion to set aside the jury’s punitive damages award, both under Federal Rule of Civil

        Procedure 50(b). Meanwhile, Duvall filed a motion for equitable relief, seeking back pay

        and front pay. Novant Health opposed that motion, arguing that Duvall didn’t make

        reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages in seeking new employment.

               In August 2022, the district court entered an order that (1) denied Novant Health’s

        renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; (2) granted in part and denied in part

        Novant Health’s motion to set aside punitive damages, reducing the award to the statutory

        maximum of $300,000 but otherwise finding punitive damages to be supported by the

        evidence; and (3) granted in part Duvall’s motion for equitable relief in the form of back

        pay and front pay. Duvall v. Novant Health Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00624-DSC, 2022 WL

        3331263 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2022). Consistent with that order, the court entered judgment

        in Duvall’s favor. On Duvall’s motion, the court later issued an amended judgment that

        recalculated the amount of back pay and prejudgment interest and also awarded Duvall

        attorney’s fees and costs. Duvall v. Novant Health Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00624-DSC, 2022

        WL 11271199 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2022).

               Novant Health timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

                                                    II.

               We begin with Novant Health’s claim that the district court erred in denying Rule

        50(b) relief. According to Novant Health, insufficient evidence was presented at trial to

        sustain the jury’s finding of liability and its award of punitive damages. We disagree with

                                                    14
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 15 of 30

        Novant Health on the issue of liability, but we find merit in its argument as to punitive

        damages.

               We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 50(b) motion de novo. Bresler v.

        Wilmington Tr. Co., 855 F.3d 178, 196 (4th Cir. 2017). In doing so, we view the evidence

        in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—here, Duvall—and “disregard all

        evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Reeves v.

        Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000). Only if, after doing all that,

        we find that “the only conclusion a reasonable jury could have reached is one in favor of

        the moving party” will we disturb the judgment below. Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v.

        Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 3 F.4th 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added) (cleaned up). As

        such, the moving party “faces a steep hurdle.” Westmoreland v. TWC Admin. LLC, 924

        F.3d 718, 722 (4th Cir. 2019). Indeed, it will not do to merely show that “reasonable minds

        could differ” as to the jury’s findings, for even then we must affirm. Bresler, 855 F.3d at

        196; see also Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat’l Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587, 599

        (4th Cir. 1996) (“An appeals court is abjured to determine whether a jury verdict can be

        sustained, on any reasonable theory.” (emphasis added) (cleaned up)).

                                                    A.

               In this case, Duvall advanced a mixed-motive theory of liability under 42 U.S.C.

        § 2000e-2(m), which provides that “an unlawful employment practice is established when

        the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a

        motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated

        the practice.”

                                                    15
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 16 of 30

               As the Supreme Court has explained, a mixed-motive plaintiff faces “a lessened

        causation standard” than but-for causation. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S.

        338, 349 (2013). For he need only provide sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence

        demonstrating that his protected characteristic was a motivating factor in the defendant’s

        challenged employment practice. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 101 (2003). If

        he does so, “the employer cannot escape liability.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident

        Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 317 (4th Cir. 2005). 6

               So the question here is whether Duvall presented sufficient evidence (direct or

        circumstantial) for a reasonable jury to have found that his race and/or sex played a

        motivating factor in Novant Health’s decision to fire him. Like the district court, we answer

        that question in the affirmative.

               To begin, Duvall presented evidence about the context surrounding his termination.

        The jury heard that Duvall was fired in the middle of a widescale D&I initiative at Novant

        Health, which sought to “embed diversity and inclusion throughout” the company, J.A.

        1365, and to ensure that its overall workforce, including its leadership, “reflect[ed] the

        communities [it] serve[d],” J.A. 1430. There was evidence presented that Novant Health

        endeavored to accomplish this goal by, among other things, benchmarking its then-current

        D&I levels and developing and employing D&I metrics; committing to “adding additional

               6
                Although the employer’s liability is established upon the requisite showing, “if an
        employer can demonstrate that it ‘would have taken the same action in the absence of the
        impermissible motivating factor,’ it can restrict a plaintiff’s damages to injunctive and
        declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 317 (emphasis
        added) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)).

                                                     16
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 17 of 30

        dimensions of diversity to the executive and senior leadership teams” and incorporating “a

        system wide decision making process that includes a diversity and inclusion lens,” J.A.

        1366; and evaluating the success of its efforts and identifying and closing any remaining

        diversity gaps.

               The jury also heard about the demographic data from 2015 and 2017 that Novant

        Health collected. From a factual standpoint, the data revealed a decline in female leaders

        and an overrepresentation of male and white leadership in comparison to the total

        workforce. It also showed an increase in white male representation “with each level of

        management,” J.A. 1426, compared to a decrease in “African-American representation . . .

        at each level [of management] with the exception of the executive team,” J.A. 1423. By

        2019, however, Novant Health saw a dramatic increase in female leaders just from the year

        prior (the period in which Duvall was fired). It also reflected a decrease of white workers

        and leaders and an increase in black workers and leaders over the life of the D&I Plan.

        Additionally, after remaining gaps in the Hispanic and Asian workforce were identified,

        Novant Health adopted a long-term financial incentive plan that tied executive bonuses to

        closing those gaps by achieving a specific percentage of each group. 7

               7
                 Novant Health argues that evidence of these race-based bonuses is irrelevant as
        the financial incentive plan instituting them was not formally adopted until after Duvall
        was fired. It further argues that in any event, the bonuses related only to furthering the goal
        of increasing the Hispanic and Asian workforce, a goal that would not have been furthered
        by Duvall’s firing since he was replaced by a black woman. But we do not think that either
        fact would preclude a jury from properly considering this evidence. It was all part of the
        same D&I Plan, and a jury could reasonably see these race-based bonuses as a formal
        recognition of a preexisting policy of using race in decision-making.

                                                      17
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 18 of 30

              Against that backdrop, we consider the evidence specific to Duvall and his

        termination.

              As noted above, there was substantial evidence at trial that Duvall performed

        superbly in his role at Novant Health. The jury heard how he transformed Novant Health’s

        marketing program, earning him high praise both internally—including from the CEO

        himself—and nationally; how Novant Health’s marketing department won several awards

        under his leadership; and how Duvall’s strong annual reviews were reflective of his

        success. Not even Novant Health disputes this evidence. See Opening Br. 7 (“In some

        respects, Duvall’s performance met or exceeded Novant Health’s expectations during his

        tenure. He helped develop a method of insights and analytics to assess Novant Health’s

        marketing efforts, spoke at national conferences, and headed a marketing team that won

        national awards. Consistent with these accomplishments, Duvall’s written performance

        reviews were generally positive.”); see also J.A. 328–29 (Cureton testifying that Duvall

        was “a complement to our strategy” and that he “had, overall, done a good job for our

        organization”).

               But despite this evidence of his exceptional performance, the jury heard that Duvall

        was abruptly fired, having been told only that Novant Health was “going in a different

        direction.” J.A. 649. It also heard that this news came as a shock to both him and several

        Novant Health employees, including other members of management. He was then

        immediately replaced by two women. One of these women, who took over Duvall’s

        marketing duties on an interim basis, was a racial minority and was rated a lower performer

        than Duvall. Novant Health then hired another black woman, Free, to step into that

                                                    18
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 19 of 30

        marketing role on a permanent basis. Free was one of three finalists for that position—all

        black women. All of this happened during Phase 2 of the D&I Plan, an express goal of

        which was to “[c]ommit to adding additional dimensions of diversity to the executive and

        senior leadership teams.” J.A. 1366 (emphasis added). On top of that, the jury heard

        evidence that just a few months before firing Duvall—and still during Phase 2 of the D&I

        Plan—Cureton fired Rick Brajer, another white employee who was performing well, and

        assigned his duties to a black male employee. A jury would be entitled to consider this

        evidence as suggestive of calculated moves to increase diversity among Novant Health’s

        senior leadership by removing white men. 8

               Finally, the jury heard Cureton offer shifting, conflicting, and unsubstantiated

        explanations for Duvall’s termination. Cureton testified that he fired Duvall because he

        lacked “engagement” and “support from the executive team.” J.A. 864. But those were not

        the reasons he gave Duvall at the time, and neither Cureton nor anyone else at Novant

        Health, a multibillion-dollar company with ample employee-relation resources, could

        produce any contemporaneous evidence documenting these supposed deficiencies in

        Duvall’s performance—or indeed, any deficiencies at all. We have previously held that

        such circumstances are indicative of pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Jacobs v.

               8
                 Additionally, as indicated above, Cureton later fired at least one other white male
        direct report, Woollen, despite no record evidence of poor performance. Duvall, Brajer,
        and Woollen comprised seven of the white men that reported directly to Cureton in 2018.
        By the time of trial, Cureton had zero white male direct reports. Although a jury could have
        credited Cureton’s explanation for these occurrences, it also could have viewed this
        evidence as further proof of a larger effort to remove white men.

                                                     19
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55          Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 20 of 30

        N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 576 (4th Cir. 2015) (reversing summary

        judgment award to the employer where “many of the purported justifications were not

        raised at the time of termination” and the employer did not document “any of the

        justifications . . . in any way”). And we see no reason to reach a different conclusion here.

               What’s more, the jury’s consideration was not limited to Novant Health’s failure to

        produce any corroborating evidence; it also saw evidence presented by Duvall that directly

        contradicted Cureton’s undocumented assertions at trial. For example, despite Cureton’s

        claim that Duvall lacked engagement, the jury saw evidence that Duvall had excellent

        “Engagement” scores at the time he was fired. In fact, Duvall not only scored higher than

        the average score among Novant Health’s leadership—he scored higher than Cureton.

        Additionally, although at trial Cureton pointed to an (undocumented) incident where

        Duvall stopped speaking midway through a presentation in 2016 as well as Duvall’s

        absence from two meetings in 2018, the jury heard evidence from Duvall that explained

        why these claims were misleading. Duvall testified, for instance, that the 2016 incident was

        due to sudden-onset illness, that he later finished the presentation, and that he was never

        reprimanded or otherwise told that he had damaged his credibility with Novant Health’s

        leadership as a result of that incident. And he further testified, without contradiction, that

        the missed meetings in 2018 were due to previously known scheduling conflicts for which

        he ensured someone was available and prepared to cover his absence. It was well within

        the jury’s prerogative to choose which version of events to believe.

               Even more consequential, the jury heard the deposition testimony of a corporate

        recruiter, Grady, who spoke to Cureton about Duvall a few months after his firing. That

                                                     20
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55          Filed: 03/12/2024       Pg: 21 of 30

        testimony presented a very different narrative than the one offered by Cureton at trial.

        According to Grady, Cureton said that Duvall was not terminated due to his performance.

        In fact, Cureton spoke very highly of Duvall’s performance and went so far as to say that

        he “would hire [Duvall] again.” J.A. 312. Cureton instead attributed Duvall’s termination

        to “[l]ots of change in the last 12 months regarding executive leaders and others,” a “desire

        to bring in new leaders,” and “a desire for a different point of view, [a] different . . . flair.”

        J.A. 311. As we have said before, “[t]he fact that an employer has offered different

        justifications at different times for an adverse employment action is, in and of itself,

        probative of pretext.” Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 576 (cleaned up).

               Based on Cureton’s uncorroborated and conflicting justifications for Duvall’s

        termination, a jury could reasonably conclude that Cureton’s asserted reasons at trial—that

        Duvall lacked “engagement” and “support from the executive team,” J.A. 864—were

        merely “post hoc rationalizations invented for the purposes of litigation,” Jacobs, 780 F.3d

        at 576, and therefore “unworthy of credence,” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147. And if a jury could

        rationally find that Novant Health’s justifications were false, then it could also infer that

        Novant Health was “dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose.” Id.; see also St.

        Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993) (“[R]ejection of the defendant’s

        proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional

        discrimination[.]” (emphasis omitted)). 9

               9
                 Novant Health nonetheless argues that Duvall’s discrimination claim is doomed
        because he purportedly “admitted that Cureton had not discriminated against him and had
        no discriminatory animus.” Opening Br. 5. But what Duvall actually said was that he did
        (Continued)
                                                       21
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55            Filed: 03/12/2024   Pg: 22 of 30

                                                     ****

               In sum, the jury heard evidence that Duvall performed well in his role but was

        nonetheless fired and replaced, at one point or another, by three women, two of whom were

        racial minorities, amid a substantial D&I initiative that called for remaking Novant

        Health’s workforce to reflect a different racial and gender makeup. And it also heard

        conflicting and uncorroborated reasons for Duvall’s termination. Viewing this collective

        evidence in the light most favorable to Duvall, as we must, we do not find that “the only

        conclusion a reasonable jury could have reached is one in favor of [Novant Health].”

        Drummond Coal Sales, Inc., 3 F.4th at 610 (emphasis added) (cleaned up). Quite the

        opposite. There was more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that

        Duvall’s race, sex, or both motivated Novant Health’s decision to fire him. Novant Health’s

        arguments to the contrary, which largely seek a reweighing of the evidence, are

        unconvincing. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order denying Novant Health’s Rule

        50(b) motion regarding liability. 10

        not “feel that [he] had ever been discriminated against while [he was] working there” and
        that “when [Cureton] fired [him], [he] did [not] feel that he was firing [him] out of personal
        racial animus.” J.A. 653 (emphases added). Such testimony is in no way inconsistent with
        his validated theory that he was fired to further Novant Health’s D&I Plan. Cf. Lightner v.
        City of Wilmington, 545 F.3d 260, 263–64 (4th Cir. 2008) (finding Title VII discrimination
        claim meritless where the plaintiff “repeated[ly] admi[tted]” that “the real reason for his
        suspension was to cover up department wrongdoing,” not because of his race or gender).

               10
                   To be clear, employers may, if they so choose, utilize D&I-type programs. What
        they cannot do is take adverse employment actions against employees based on their race
        or gender to implement such a program. And as recounted above, the evidence presented
        at trial in this case was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that is
        precisely what Novant Health did to Duvall.

                                                       22
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 23 of 30

                                                     B.

               The jury’s award of punitive damages, however, is a different matter.

               A successful Title VII plaintiff may recover punitive damages, but only in limited

        circumstances:

                       Title VII authorizes punitive damages only when a plaintiff makes
               two showings. First, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in
               unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is
               unlawful because of its disparate impact). Second, the plaintiff must show
               that the employer engaged in the discriminatory practice with malice or with
               reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved
               individual. That is, an employer must at least discriminate in the face of a
               perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.

        Ward v. AutoZoners, LLC, 958 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Put more

        simply, the plaintiff must show both unlawful intentional discrimination and that the

        employer discriminated despite perceiving a risk of unlawfulness. This “is a high standard

        to meet.” U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 151

        (4th Cir. 2017).

               In light of our discussion above, Duvall has met the first of the required showings—

        that Novant Health unlawfully intentionally discriminated against him. However, he has

        failed to meet his burden on the second showing, which requires evidence that the employer

        discriminated “in the face of a perceived risk that its actions [would] violate federal law.”

        Ward, 958 F.3d at 263 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

               At bottom, Duvall’s defense of the jury’s award of punitive damages hinges

        predominantly on a single inference: that as a “highly educated . . . executive with a long

        career in corporate America,” Cureton must have understood that Title VII prohibits firing

                                                     23
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 24 of 30

        an employee because of his race or gender such that his termination of Duvall’s

        employment necessarily entailed acting in the face of a perceived risk of violating Title

        VII. Response Br. 59. The district court relied on the same inference when denying Novant

        Health’s Rule 50(b) motion on this point.

               While it is true, as Duvall points out, that we have previously “found evidence

        sufficient to support a jury finding of a perceived risk in cases where the employer’s

        managerial agent had at least a rudimentary knowledge of the import of a federal anti-

        discrimination statute,” we have done so only where affirmative evidence of that

        rudimentary knowledge was presented at trial. E.E.O.C. v. Fed. Express Corp., 513 F.3d

        360, 372–73 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing cases where specific evidence of the decision-maker’s

        knowledge was presented). And Duvall provided no such affirmative evidence here. He

        offered no evidence as to the training or qualification that Novant Health offered to or

        required of Cureton, or a comparable executive, to establish the requisite knowledge of

        federal anti-discrimination law. Duvall even cross-examined Cureton yet never elicited

        from him testimony establishing his personal knowledge of federal anti-discrimination law,

        let alone that he perceived a risk that his decision to fire Duvall would violate it.

               Duvall doesn’t contest this lack of direct evidence. He instead relies solely on an

        inference that Cureton had the requisite knowledge given his career as a corporate

        executive. 11 But Duvall hasn’t identified any case in which this Court, or any other, has

                Prior to joining Novant Health, Cureton served as a corporate executive at Bank
               11

        of America for several years.

                                                      24
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142        Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 25 of 30

        affirmed an award of punitive damages based solely on that kind of inference. That’s not

        surprising. After all, “[p]unitive damages are an extraordinary remedy.” Ward, 958 F.3d at

        269. And we are not persuaded that extraordinary remedy is proper here merely because

        Cureton is a “highly educated . . . executive with a long career in corporate America.”

        Response Br. 59. Indeed, to affirm the punitive damages award on that basis alone would

        water down the “high standard” imposed on a Title VII plaintiff, Consol Energy, Inc., 860

        F.3d at 151, and contradict Congress’s clear directive that punitive damages are “not to be

        awarded automatically in every successful Title VII suit,” Harris v. L & L Wings, Inc., 132

        F.3d 978, 982 (4th Cir. 1997).

                 It was Duvall’s burden to come forward with sufficient evidence at trial that Cureton

        acted “in the face of a perceived risk that [his] actions [would] violate federal law.” Ward,

        958 F.3d at 263 (citation omitted). Based on our review of this record, Duvall failed to

        meet that high burden. Accordingly, the jury’s award of punitive damages must be set

        aside.

                                                      III.

                 Finally, we address Novant Health’s claim that the district court erred in awarding

        Duvall front pay and back pay because he failed to reasonably mitigate his damages.

                 We review awards of back pay and front pay for abuse of discretion, Dennis v.

        Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 651 (4th Cir. 2002), and the findings of

        fact on which such awards are based for clear error, Taylor v. Home Ins. Co., 777 F.2d 849,

        860 (4th Cir. 1985).

                                                      25
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142       Doc: 55           Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 26 of 30

               Back pay and front pay are equitable remedies generally available to a successful

        Title VII plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). In order to receive either, however, the

        plaintiff must have mitigated his damages “by diligently seeking and accepting new

        employment substantially equivalent to that from which he was discharged.” Miller v.

        AT&T Corp., 250 F.3d 820, 838 (4th Cir. 2001) (cleaned up); see also Brady v. Thurston

        Motor Lines, Inc., 753 F.2d 1269, 1273 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[A] Title VII plaintiff cannot

        remain idle after an unlawful discharge and receive back pay for that period where he was

        not actively seeking employment.”). But this duty to diligently seek new work “is not

        without limits.” Miller, 250 F.3d at 838. As we have explained, “a plaintiff need not go

        into another line of work, accept a demotion, or take a demeaning position.” Id. (cleaned

        up). And while the duty to mitigate rests with the plaintiff, the burden to show that the

        plaintiff failed to fulfill that duty rests with the defendant. Id.

               Here, the district court found that Duvall satisfied his duty to mitigate damages. The

        question we must now decide is whether that factual determination is clearly erroneous.

        See Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d at 149. We conclude it is not. 12

               12
                  Because Duvall was fired from Henry Ford “without cause,” J.A. 1690, his
        termination did not affect his eligibility for back pay from that point to the date of
        judgment. Cf. Brady, 753 F.2d at 1277 (“[A] Title VII claimant must . . . use reasonable
        diligence to maintain any suitable employment which is secured. To permit otherwise
        would force the Title VII defendant to pay for the misconduct of a claimant in subsequent
        employment.”). We are therefore concerned with two separate periods of time requiring
        mitigation: (1) the period between Duvall’s firing at Novant Health and his hiring at Henry
        Ford; and (2) the period between his firing at Henry Ford and the date of judgment.

                                                        26
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 27 of 30

               In claiming otherwise, Novant Health raises two principal arguments: (1) Duvall

        didn’t actively apply for jobs but merely waited for work to come to him; and (2) Duvall

        turned down certain job opportunities.

               Novant Health’s first argument takes too simplistic a view of the record. The record

        contained uncontradicted evidence supporting why Duvall sought new employment in the

        way he did. In particular, Duvall testified that for executive positions “at [his] level,”

        simply “apply[ing]” for jobs is not typical. J.A. 1976. Instead, he testified, “the

        predominant way that . . . executives are placed” is through “executive search”—that is,

        through the use of executive recruiters. J.A. 665–66. That testimony was unrebutted by

        Novant Health and finds ample support in the record. Within two months of his termination

        from Novant Health, Duvall was contacted by executive recruiters for five different

        employers interested in potentially hiring him, ultimately leading to his better-paying

        position at Henry Ford. Likewise, shortly after he was fired from Henry Ford, Duvall

        received calls from recruiters for four other employers. Further still, Novant Health itself

        used an executive recruiter to find and hire both Duvall and his replacement, Free.

               Given Duvall’s unrebutted testimony combined with the obvious success he (and

        Novant Health) had through executive recruiters, Novant Health’s complaint that Duvall

        “technically didn’t apply” for positions, J.A. 1936, is misleading and ignores the practical

        reality of the applicable executive job market as described in the record without

        contradiction. Novant Health’s utter failure to identify any opportunities for comparable

        employment that Duvall could have pursued by “applying” for them in the traditional sense

        only underscores this fact. See Sellers v. Delgado Cmty. Coll., 839 F.2d 1132, 1139 (5th

                                                    27
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 28 of 30

        Cir. 1988) (“[The] employer must demonstrate that comparable work was available and the

        claimant did not seek it out.”). It is also disingenuous to suggest, as Novant Health does,

        that Duvall merely sat on his hands until employment found him. As the district court

        found, Duvall consulted trade journals for executive openings and networked with his

        connections on LinkedIn for potential employment opportunities. And the record shows

        that when he was contacted by executive recruiters, Duvall actively engaged in extensive

        and good-faith discussions with those recruiters. Thus, we simply are not persuaded by

        Novant Health’s generalized assertion that Duvall could have done more. See Rasimas v.

        Mich. Dep’t of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 624 (6th Cir. 1983) (“A claimant is only

        required to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages, and is not held to the highest

        standards of diligence. The claimant’s burden is not onerous[.]”). 13

               Novant Health’s second argument—that Duvall is precluded from back pay and

        front pay because he turned down certain job opportunities—fares no better.

               Shortly after Duvall was fired by Novant Health, he was contacted by recruiters for

        five separate employers: Henry Ford, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, the

        University of Miami, and Minnesota Fairview. For entirely sensible reasons recounted in

               13
                  Moreover, we have no reason to question the district court’s finding that Duvall’s
        job-search efforts were negatively impacted because of this lawsuit. In particular, the
        district court credited Duvall’s testimony that (1) he was fired from Henry Ford “weeks
        after the CEO there learned that he had sued [Novant Health],” and (2) “three executive
        recruiters for substantially comparable opportunities” “ceased communications with
        [Duvall] after learning of this lawsuit and his short tenure at [Henry Ford].” Duvall, 2022
        WL 3331263, at *13. Such evidence is a relevant consideration in assessing Duvall’s
        mitigation efforts.

                                                     28
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142        Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024    Pg: 29 of 30

        his unrebutted deposition and trial testimony, Duvall ultimately withdrew from

        consideration by the latter three employers and pursued the Henry Ford and Johns Hopkins

        opportunities. Duvall’s decision paid off as it landed him a higher-paying job with Henry

        Ford. In those circumstances, we fail to see the unreasonableness of Duvall’s course of

        action.

                  The same goes for Duvall’s decision to withdraw from consideration as to the Cape

        Fear opportunity following his termination from Henry Ford. The district court found, and

        Novant Health fails to rebut, that Cape Fear was a mere fraction of the size of Novant

        Health in terms of both revenue and staff. As our cases make clear, the duty to mitigate

        does not require a plaintiff to accept “inferior” work that could “injuriously affect [his]

        future career or reputation in his profession.” Williams v. Albemarle City Bd. of Educ., 508

        F.2d 1242, 1243 (4th Cir. 1974); see also Miller, 250 F.3d at 838 (explaining that “a

        plaintiff need not . . . accept a demotion[] or take a demeaning position” (cleaned up)).

        Novant Health responds that because Duvall faced an “extended” period of unemployment,

        he “had a burden to lower his sights and seek the best job available.” Reply Br. 26 (cleaned

        up). But as the district court found, Duvall turned down the Cape Fear “shortly after his

        separation from [Henry Ford], not after an ‘extended period’ of looking unsuccessfully for

        work.” Duvall, 2022 WL 3331263, at *13 (citation omitted). In addition, Duvall was still

        exploring opportunities with three other employers at the time, further illustrating that his

                                                      29
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2142      Doc: 55         Filed: 03/12/2024    Pg: 30 of 30

        decision not to pursue the Cape Fear opportunity did not establish a failure to mitigate.

        Simply put, therefore, Novant Health’s argument is meritless. 14

              In light of the record before us, we cannot say the district court clearly erred in

        finding that Duvall exercised reasonable diligence in seeking new employment, both after

        his termination from Novant Health and after his termination from Henry Ford.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s award of back pay and front pay.

                                                   IV.

              For the reasons explained above, we affirm in part and vacate in part the district

        court’s judgment and remand the case for entry of an amended judgment as to punitive

        damages and for such further proceedings deemed appropriate by the district court.

                                                     AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
                                                      AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

              14
                 We also note that the district court observed that much of Duvall’s post-Henry
        Ford job search took place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

                                                    30