Chisolm v. Liberty Lines Transit Inc., 7:08-cv-07894

SDNY case against Liberty Lines Transit, Inc. by Larrie Chisolm and John Sharrock, filed 2011, alleging Title VII and NY HRL violations based on sex-plus discrimination and retaliation.
Jury trial led to verdict in favor of plaintiffs on January 28, 2008 bus-operator discrimination claims, awarding $7,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages to each plaintiff.
Liberty moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 after close of evidence, and for a new trial; the court reserved on Rule 50 motions and later denied them.
Court found plaintiffs reasonably mitigated damages in Chisolm’s case but Sharrock failed to show reasonable mitigation, and thus front pay was not awarded for Sharrock while back pay was awarded for Sharrock for one year.
Court awarded back pay to Chisolm from January 28, 2008 through July 29, 2011 totaling $101,885, with supporting post-trial calculations and deductions for earnings, and approved back pay for Sharrock for one year totaling $10,264.
Court awarded front pay to Chisolm for five years, calculated with Addendum #7 figures (subject to present value adjustment and pension considerations), and considered but did not award front pay for Sharrock; pre-judgment interest and present value adjustments to be determined later.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether front pay is appropriate for Chisolm	Chisolm entitled to front pay given ongoing inability to obtain comparable full-time work	Front pay speculative; lengthy horizon not justified	Front pay for 5 years reasonable but later limited by present value considerations and speculation concerns
Whether Sharrock and Chisolm reasonably mitigated damages	Mitigation should reduce damages where comparable employment exists	Sharrock did not mitigate; Chisolm mitigated by seeking Royal Coach and other attempts	Sharrock not entitled to front pay due to failure to mitigate; back pay awarded for one year; Chisolm’s mitigation supported back pay and future wage calculations
Back pay awards and calculations	Back pay should reflect lost earnings from January 2008 to trial	Chisolm/Sharrock not fully qualified for back pay; evidence contested	Chisolm back pay $101,885; Sharrock back pay $10,264; deductions for earnings apply; jury verdict amount adjusted accordingly
Pre-judgment and present value considerations	Interest and present value should be calculated to date of decision	Present value and discount rate to be determined by court	Present value calculations to be submitted within 15 days; pre-judgment interest to be calculated after inputs

Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (necessity of showing substantial evidence for retrial under Rule 59)
Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court) (front pay considerations and damages in discrimination cases)
Greenway v. Buffalo Hilton Hotel, 143 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1998) (employer not liable for front pay where mitigation shown or not shown)
Whittlesey v. Union Carbide Corp., 742 F.2d 728 (2d Cir. 1984) (front pay considerations and speculative awards)
Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858 (2d Cir. 1998) (prejudgment interest in federal rights enforcement)