853 F. Supp. 2d 238
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Bergerson was terminated from CNYPC on January 31, 2006 after which she sought back pay and related relief; the district court later barred back pay and reduced compensatory damages to the statutory cap, with a judgment entered February 17, 2010.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of state-law claims and the reduced fee rate, remanding for an inquest on back pay and potential front pay while allowing reinstatement to be considered inapplicable.
- A Second Circuit remand led to a later inquest hearing on October 5, 2011, at which the parties stipulated reinstatement was inappropriate and the court proceeded to determine back pay, front pay, and appellate fees.
- Bergerson held a Grade 14 SHTA at CNYPC with a 2005 total earnings of $61,452; she began and ended employment at CNYPC between 2004 and 2007, with subsequent period of work at Birnie Bus and SLPC.
- Evidence showed comparable employees at CNYPC received annual raises and substantial overtime; Bergerson argued she was entitled to back pay reflecting lost wages and benefits, while the defense argued mitigation and lack of evidence for certain benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Back pay entitlement and scope | Bergerson entitled to full back pay to restore status quo | Back pay limited by mitigation and period of employment | Back pay awarded Jan 31, 2006 to Sep 26, 2007; health insurance and retirement not included; pre-judgment interest applied |
| Front pay as remedy | Front pay may be warranted if back pay insufficient | Back pay makes the plaintiff whole; front pay unnecessary | Front pay denied; back pay sufficient to make Bergerson whole |
| Attorney’s fees on appeal | Prevailing party entitled to fees on appeal | Partial success; fees to be reduced; only certain rates apply | Fees reduced by 50%; prevailing rates: $210/hr attorney, $80/hr paralegal, $105/hr travel; total $9,040.50 |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (back pay framework and mitigation considerations)
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) (back pay principle; need for explanation when denied)
- Saulpaugh v. Monroe Cmty. Hosp., 4 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1993) (lost salary and benefits; pre-judgment interest guidance)
- Ford Motor Co. v. E.E.O.C., 458 U.S. 219 (1982) (mitigation and substantially equivalent employment)
- Padilla v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 92 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1996) (front pay considerations in discrimination cases)
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (fee shifting standards; successful claims require fee allocation)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (modest reasonableness standard for fee awards)