Witkowski v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 404 F. App'x 674

Witkowski, born 1944, joined the Union in 1994 and filed a PHRC charge in 2001 alleging age discrimination.
Witkowski sued the Union in 2006 under the ADEA and PHRA for age discrimination and retaliation after long-term assignments were denied.
Before trial, the district court excluded evidence of Witkowski’s disability pension and Social Security benefits as to mitigation. Witkowski nonetheless disclosed financial circumstances on cross-examination, without mentioning specific benefits.
After a 12-day trial, the jury found no willfulness for doubling back pay, awarded back pay and emotional distress to Witkowski on retaliation claims, and found no mitigation deduction.
The verdict included a notation “270,350 x 2” which raised concerns of potential double damages, prompting the district court to instruct the jury to clarify the back pay amount.
The jury revised the verdict form, removing the doubling notation; judgment was entered January 30, 2009, and the Union appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of disability/social security evidence	Witkowski contends the evidence is probative of mitigation and damages.	Union argued exclusion was permissible under Rule 403 to avoid prejudice and confusion.	District court did not abuse discretion; error, if any, was harmless.
Facial inconsistency of the verdict and its handling	Union seeks a new trial or reduced back pay due to inconsistency.	Court properly guided jury to resolve any inconsistency; revised verdict form was not facially inconsistent.	Judge did not err in entering judgment on the revised verdict form.

Buskirk v. Apollo Metals, 307 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2002) (harmless error standard for evidentiary exclusion when impact on outcome unlikely)
Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep't, 174 F.3d 95 (3d Cir. 1999) (harmless error in evidentiary rulings when not affecting outcome)
McKenna v. City of Phila., 582 F.3d 447 (3d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion review for a motion for a new trial; interplay with law application)
Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Services, Inc., 561 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2009) (court may resubmit or reinterpret inconsistent verdicts to achieve consistency)
Mumma v. Reading Co., 247 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Pa. 1965) (illustrates improper handling of verdicts or inconsistencies (distinguishable))
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 915 F. Supp. 1333 (D. Del. 1994) (inappropriate or facially inconsistent verdicts; need for correction)