For an employee to receive equitable relief on a Title VII discrimination claim, the individual must be able to prove damages. This inability was the plaintiff’s undoing in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit case Olivares v. Brentwood Industries.

SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF

The plaintiff brought a cause of action for discrimination based on his Mexican ancestry. He worked as a shift supervisor and had spoken with his supervisor about providing permanent employment applications to temporary workers he supervised. The supervisor allegedly told the employee not to give applications to any Mexican workers because he didn’t “want to employ more Mexicans.”

Later, the supervisor saw that two of the temporary workers, in violation of company policy, weren’t wearing safety gear. The employee and two workers were disciplined, but they claimed the violation had never occurred. Thereafter, the employee was terminated. The employer argued that the employee had overlooked safety violations of the workers he managed. But a jury found that he was terminated because of his race and awarded him $1 in nominal damages.

The employee sought equitable relief in the form of:

1. Reinstatement to his previous job, or
2. Front pay to compensate for the loss of future employment opportunities.

Although he found another job, the employee testified that it paid about half of what he’d earned when working for his previous employer.

The trial court concluded that reinstatement was neither possible nor practical and that the employee hadn’t presented sufficient evidence that he was entitled to front pay. The employee appealed.

AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit decided that the trial court had correctly held that reinstatement wasn’t practical or possible because comparable positions were filled. In addition, a productive working relationship would be impossible. The employer had alleged that there was a “trust issue” between management and the employee because he had failed to enforce company rules.

The employee argued that the trial court shouldn’t have rejected or contradicted the jury’s findings. However, the appeals court determined that, because the jury hadn’t made any findings as to whether the employee had failed to enforce rules, the trial court could credit the employer’s testimony on that issue.

The appeals court also found that the trial court hadn’t abused its discretion when denying front pay because the employee had failed to set forth a prima facie case for equitable damages. He’d provided only vague estimates of his postverdict salary — which were insufficient to establish damages. The employee could have supported his claim for future lost wages by presenting current pay stubs showing his earnings. However, he only set forth his testimony and old wage documents, which weren’t enough to support his claim of front pay.

The appeals court agreed with the trial court’s refusal to speculate about damages. Ultimately, it affirmed the lower court’s decision.

GOING TO TRIAL

Courts still require proof of damages from plaintiffs in discrimination cases. So if your organization is faced with a discrimination suit where the employee can’t prove damages, you may want to consider going to trial. If you choose this option, be ready to show that reinstatement wouldn’t be possible or practical and the employee failed to set forth enough evidence of damages.