Fred Jackson v. Host International, Inc.
426 F. App'x 215
5th Cir.2011Background
- Host International, Inc. took over airport concessions and kept Jackson as general manager on a 180-day trial; Jackson was 57 when hired.
- Jackson discovered a pay disparity favoring younger employees and reported it to Boorom, who attributed it to needing to attract younger workers.
- Jackson was terminated about two weeks after his pay-disparity complaint, with inconsistent, post-hoc justifications and no written termination notice.
- Jackson sued in state court for age discrimination and retaliation under Texas Labor Code chs. 21.051, 21.055; removal to federal court and a jury verdict in his favor.
- District court awarded Jackson $175,000 in attorney’s fees and damages including back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages; Host appeals and seeks JML, new trial, and fee adjustments.
- This appeal concerns whether the evidence supported the jury’s age-discrimination and retaliation verdicts, the appropriateness of jury instructions, damages, and attorney’s fees, with remand for appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial evidence of age discrimination? | Jackson’s age-related remarks and timing support discrimination. | Host denied age motive and pointed to performance-based reasons. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported age-discrimination finding. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of retaliation after pay-disparity complaint? | Causation shown by timing and pretext undermining reasons. | Proffered reasons were legitimate and not pretextual. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported retaliation finding. |
| Was the “same actor” inference required and properly refused? | The same-actor inference applied to hiring/firing; should have been charged. | No; district court did not abuse discretion; no essential impact on result. | |
| Were damages properly awarded (back pay, front pay, compensatory damages) and properly mitigated? | Damages supported by evidence of ongoing effects and mitigation. | Evidence for bonuses and front-pay duration too speculative; mitigation incomplete. | Damages affirmed; front/back pay and compensatory damages upheld; some arguments waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2001) (applies McDonnell Douglas to Texas Human Rights Act claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (credibility and evidence evaluation in jury verdicts)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (U.S. 2010) (limits on attorney-fee enhancements under lodestar; rare exceptions)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (Johnson factors for evaluating attorney’s fees (contextual))