Richard Miller v. Raytheon Company
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9019
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Miller, age 53, was terminated in a 2008 Raytheon reduction-in-force amid age-neutral procedures.
- The jury found willful discrimination under ADEA and TCHRA, awarding back pay, pension benefits, mental anguish, and punitive damages; district court adjusted several awards.
- Raytheon challenged JMOL, new trial, willfulness finding, treatment of pension benefits as back or front pay, and mental anguish damages.
- Raytheon argued pension enhancement should be treated as front pay, not back pay, and mental anguish damages should be reduced; Miller cross-appealed on remedies and caps.
- Court affirmed liability, vacated the enhanced pension as back pay, vacated mental anguish award, and remanded front pay for reconsideration; liquidated damages were affirmed at least in part, and attorney’s fees were upheld as reduced.
- Miller’s enhanced pension and mental anguish changes potentially affect the front pay calculation on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| JMOL sufficiency for discrimination | Miller ex; evidence showed age bias in layoff decisions. | Raytheon contends evidence insufficient for discrimination. | No JMOL; evidence supports age discrimination under Boeing framework. |
| Treatment of pension enhancement as back or front pay | Enhanced pension should be back pay, subject to doubling. | Should be front pay; not subject to doubling. | Enhanced pension treated as front pay; vacate pension as back pay and adjust liquidated damages. |
| Mental anguish damages | Award justified by emotional distress from termination. | Evidence insufficient for high emotional-distress award. | Vacate mental anguish award due to lack of evidentiary support. |
| Double recovery and liquidated vs punitive damages | Pursue both liquidated and punitive damages as applicable. | Avoid double recovery; choose higher available remedy. | Recover under ADEA liquidated damages; district court proper in applying higher recovery; no double recovery with TCHRA punitive damages. |
| Constitutionality and application of TCHRA damages cap | Cap may violate Texas Constitution; potentially require higher state cap. | Cap constitutional and applicable. | TCHRA non-economic damages cap constitutional; apply cap; remand for front pay reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969) (courts affirm jury verdict under Boeing standard when reasonable disagreement exists on discrimination.)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (Supreme Court 1993) (knowing or reckless disregard standard; two-tier liability guidance.)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext and circumstantial evidence may support discriminatory intent findings.)
- Smith v. Berry Co., 165 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 1999) (trial on the merits; circumstantial evidence can support discrimination findings.)
- Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000) (limits on willfulness determinations in ADEA cases.)
- DeCorte v. Jordan, 497 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2007) (evidence standards for emotional distress damages.)
- Banks v. Travelers Cos., 180 F.3d 358 (2d Cir. 1999) (front pay as equitable remedy; damages framework outside potential back pay.)
- Skalka v. Fernald Env. Restoration Mgmt., 178 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 1999) (present value considerations for future benefits when calculating damages.)
- Cryak v. Lemon, 919 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1990) (interplay of federal and state remedies for overlapping age-discrimination claims.)