Pittington v. Great Smoky Mountain Lumberjack Feud, LLC (PLR1)
3:14-cv-00397
E.D. Tenn.Apr 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (David S. Pittington) sued his former employer for retaliation under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act; a jury awarded $10,000 in back pay and no compensatory or punitive damages.
- Plaintiff moved under Rule 59 to alter/amend the judgment or for a new trial on damages, seeking (1) $40,632 in back pay, (2) prejudgment interest, and (3) front pay.
- Plaintiff’s trial evidence on damages consisted primarily of testimony about employers, dates, and pay rates; he offered no documentary substantiation or detailed evidence about unemployment periods or mitigation efforts.
- Parties stipulated that plaintiff fully mitigated his damages as of October 12, 2015; the jury limited back pay roughly to the period from October 2012 until April 2013.
- The employer ceased operations in December 2015; plaintiff has been employed by a different employer since October 2015 and now earns more than he did while employed by the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of back pay | Pittington claims lost wages of ~$40,632 and asks the court to increase the $10,000 award | Defendant says plaintiff failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty and presented insufficient evidence of mitigation | Denied—jury verdict reasonable given lack of documentary proof and long unexplained unemployment periods; court will not alter award |
| Prejudgment interest | Requests prejudgment interest on the $10,000 back pay award | Objects to interest but concedes post-judgment statutory rate if interest awarded | Granted—court awards compound prejudgment interest using rate in 28 U.S.C. §1961 from Oct. 8, 2012 to Mar. 11, 2016 |
| Front pay | Requests front pay because theater employment in Pigeon Forge may be unstable | Contends plaintiff waived front-pay claim or it is unnecessary given plaintiff’s current higher-earning employment | Denied—record does not support front pay; plaintiff earns more now and has maintained current employment longer than with defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Ablemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (Title VII back pay aims to make plaintiff whole)
- Rasimas v. Michigan Department of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show failure to mitigate and availability of comparable positions)
- Conte v. General Housewares Corp., 215 F.3d 628 (6th Cir.) (trial court need not disturb verdict that could reasonably be reached)
- EEOC v. Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836 (6th Cir.) (prejudgment interest is part of complete compensation in Title VII back pay awards)
- Suggs v. ServiceMaster Educ. Food Mgmt., 72 F.3d 1228 (6th Cir.) (factors for awarding front pay)
- Roush v. KFC National Management Co., 10 F.3d 392 (6th Cir.) (no front pay when plaintiff earns more in subsequent employment)