Don’t Forget Front Pay When Litigating a Title VII Case!
After a three-day bench trial in Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. District Court Judge John T. Nixon found in favor of a female African-American plaintiff on her race and sex harassment claims and entered a judgment of $1,073,261.00 against her former employer, Whirlpool Corporation. EEOC v. Freeman, Case No. 3:06-0593, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118624 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 21, 2009). This case is a useful reminder that Title VII plaintiffs may be entitled to not only back pay but substantial front pay awards as well.
In this case, Judge Nixon determined that as a result of the ongoing harassment, Plaintiff “suffer[ed] from chronic posttraumatic stress disorder rendering her unable to work.” Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Mark Cohen, testified that, adjusted for present day value, Plaintiff experienced a range of wage loss between $415,772.00 (through age 57.6) and $623,541.00 (through social security retirement age). In all, Dr. Cohen calculated Plaintiff’s net loss in earning capacity to be $773,261.00 to age 67. Dr. Cohen’s testimony proved persuasive because this was the exact amount of Judge Nixon’s back pay and front pay award. The remaining $300,000.00 of the award was for Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary losses, i.e., emotional injuries. This amount was the statutory maximum that any Title VII plaintiff could recover for their compensatory and/or punitive damages. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)(3).
Interestingly, the last sentence of Plaintiff’s post-trial brief read as follows: “Defendant’s Fourth-Quarter 2008 net earnings were $44 million dollars, and Defendant expects to generate free cash flow between $300 and $400 million in 2009.” While the facts of the case were certainly egregious, Whirlpool’s size and financial earnings may also have played a role in the judge’s decision to generously compensate the Plaintiff with a high front pay award.
Last 5 posts by Adisa Krupalija
- Non-Union Employers: Don’t Forget About the National Labor Relations Act - January 18th, 2010
- Prompt + Reasonable = No Liability Under Title VII - September 14th, 2009
- Ricci v. DeStefano: A Missed Opportunity to Set a Bright-line Rule - July 7th, 2009