Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
41 A.3d 739
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Quinlan sued Curtiss-Wright for LAD discrimination and retaliatory discharge; second trial (2007) awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling over $4.5 million each; front pay of $3.65 million formed the major part of compensatory damages; Supreme Court remanded for issues including front pay, punitive damages, and fees; trial court’s front pay instructions improperly burdened defendant to prove future non-mitigation; remand ordered for retrial on front pay with updated proofs and proper instructions.
- Jury awarded back pay, front pay, and emotional distress; punitive damages matched compensatory damages; final judgment included prejudgment interest and fees; on appeal, liability affirmed but front pay and related issues remanded.
- Court prior opinions held plaintiff established retaliation; Supreme Court later reinstated retaliation finding and allowed punitive damages based on egregious conduct; this court now analyzes front pay, mitigation, and related evidentiary issues for retrial.
- Front pay issue is central: court held trial court erred by placing burden on Curtiss-Wright to prove plaintiff would not mitigate future earnings; front pay must be retried with proper guidance on permanency/duration and mitigation bearing no explicit future-mitigation burden on defendant.
- Court also addressed admissibility of expert projection testimony and noted that a new trial is needed for front pay; other damage components (back pay, punitive damages, fees) to be reconsidered in retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Front pay burden of proof | Quinlan argues future non-mitigation burden improperly placed on employer | Curtiss-Wright argues defense should prove future non-mitigation | Error; no future-mitigation burden on employer; retrial ordered on front pay |
| Front pay jury instructions | Instructions lacked permanency/duration clarity | Instructions acceptable but flawed | Remand for new front pay trial with proper charge and duration determinations |
| Mitigation framework for front pay | Plaintiff bears burden to prove damages; no explicit future mitigation burden on defendant | Burden to show failed future mitigation | Rejects future mitigation burden on defendant; adopt evidentiary approach without explicit mitigation burden; guide on permanency/duration to be provided |
| Admissibility of Marcus projections | Expert projections are reliable to quantify future losses | Projections may be speculative/out of scope | Upheld admissibility; retrial may amplify expert proofs; ensure proper framing of duration issue |
| After-acquired evidence and punitive damages | After-acquired evidence does not bar front pay or punitive claims | Could limit liability | Punitive damages vacated and remanded along with front pay; remain issues for retrial; law-of-the-case for punitive-damages entitlement acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 204 N.J. 239 (N.J. 2010) (Supreme Court decision addressing retaliation and punitive damages in LAD case; guided remand to Appellate Division)
- Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 409 N.J. Super. 193 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008) (Earlier decision partially reversed; substantial issues open for remand)
- Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works, 206 N.J. 243 (N.J. 2011) (Front pay recognized as a potential remedy under LAD)
- Picogna v. Bd. of Educ. of Cherry Hill, 143 N.J. 391 (N.J. 1996) (Front pay considerations and damages framework under LAD)
- Geldreich v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 299 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1997) (Mitigation of damages; evidentiary considerations in wage-loss claims)
- Goodman v. London Metals Exchange, Inc., 86 N.J. 19 (N.J. 1981) (Mitigation is an affirmative defense; burdens tied to retrospective context)