Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
District Court Properly Denied Reinstatement and Front Pay to Employee Prevailing on Race Discrimination Claim: Eighth Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update w-002-4544 (Approx. 5 pages)
District Court Properly Denied Reinstatement and Front Pay to Employee Prevailing on Race Discrimination Claim: Eighth Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 23 May 2016 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Olivares v. Brentwood Indus., the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of reinstatement and front pay to an employee dismissed due to race where comparable positions had already been filled, there were serious trust issues between the employer and plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for equitable damages.
On May 13, 2016, in Olivares v. Brentwood Indus., the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that denying reinstatement and front pay to an employee dismissed due to his race was proper because comparable positions had already been filled, there were serious trust issues between the employer and plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for equitable damages ( (8th Cir. May 13, 2016).)
Background
Oscar Olivares, a Mexican-American US citizen, worked in Arkansas as a shift supervisor for Brentwood Industries (Brentwood). After he was terminated in February 2013 (allegedly because of a safety violation), Olivares was unable to find a job until January 2014, when he accepted a forklift driver position at another local plant.
Olivares sued Brentwood for race discrimination in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In February 2015, a unanimous jury:
- Found that Brentwood had terminated Olivares because of race.
- Awarded $1 in nominal damages because Olivares had not presented evidence of damages during trial.
In June 2015, the district court held an equitable relief hearing to address Olivares's motion for reinstatement and front pay. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court denied Olivares's motion due to lack of evidence.
Olivares appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Outcome
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by:
- Denying reinstatement because:
- the 13 comparable supervisory positions at Brentwood had already been filled (Ray v. Iuka Special Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 51 F.3d 1246, 1255 (5th Cir.1995));
- "there were serious trust issues between the management and Olivares," which could not be "rebuilt" (Denesha v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 161 F.3d 491, 501 (8th Cir.1998)); and
- the district court jury made no findings as to whether Olivares had violated the safety rules or whether his supervisor's trust concerns were genuine, noting that "[i]n making a front pay award, the district court is not free to reject or contradict findings by the jury on issues that were properly submitted to the jury" (Mathieu v. Gopher News Co., 273 F.3d 769, 778 (8th Cir. 2001)).
- Declining to award the employee front pay because:
- Olivares failed to establish a prima facie case for equitable damages;
- front pay should be denied when there is insufficient evidence to support it (Reneau v. Wayne Griffin & Sons, Inc., 945 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir. 1991));
- Olivares failed to present pay stubs or other documents showing his post-verdict pay; and
- the district court properly declined to speculate about a damages award based solely on Olivares's testimony that his annual salary at his new position was less than it was at Brentwood (Dollar v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc., 710 F.3d 798, 809 (8th Cir. 2013)).
The Eighth Circuit also rejected Olivares's argument that the district court should have awarded a hybrid form of equitable relief, such as interim front pay with delayed reinstatement until a supervisor position became available, because:
- He did not raise this argument before the district court.
- He had not pled a prima facie case for front pay.
- Delayed reinstatement would also have been impractical because of Brentwood management's mistrust of Olivares.
Practical Implications
This decision shows that employers can defeat reinstatement with evidence about why it is impractical, even if the plaintiff successfully establishes liability for discrimination. This may consist of evidence that:
- There are no comparable positions available.
- There is substantial hostility between the parties that makes a productive and amicable working relationship impossible (which must be more than the friction that normally arises from the litigation process itself).
Employers should also challenge front pay awards if a plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to support the award or calculation of damages, such as pay stubs showing post-verdict pay.