Search form

Front Pay Awards in Discrimination Cases Are Not Limited by Title VII's Monetary Cap: Supreme Court

  • July 1, 2001

In an unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an individual subjected to an unlawful hostile work environment is entitled to recover unlimited "front pay" damages for "lost" future earnings under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where reinstatement is not feasible and front pay is ordered by the trial court, the statutory cap on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages an individual may recover as a result of a violation of Title VII rights does not apply to front pay, the Court determined. Pollard v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. ___ (2001).

The plaintiff sued her employer for sexual harassment resulting from a hostile work environment, claiming she was subjected to repeated insults, sabotage and shunning by co-workers. Although she had complained to management, the harassment continued until the plaintiff took a medical leave of absence to seek treatment for psychological injuries. She eventually was terminated for refusing to return to work in the same department.

At a trial before a Tennessee federal district court, the plaintiff was awarded back pay and benefits of over $107,000, attorney's fees of over $250,000, and $300,000 in compensatory damages, the maximum amount allowable under the statutory cap. The district court stated that the award of compensatory damages was "insufficient to compensate plaintiff." However, bound by a ruling of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that defined front pay as an element of compensatory damages, the trial court applied the $300,000 limit. Since the Sixth Circuit was the only federal appeals court to subject front pay awards to the statutory damages cap, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve the conflict.

Ruling unanimously, the Court concluded that the award of front pay was not subject to the statutory cap (which increases, up to $300,000, as the size of the employer's work force increases). In so ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Title VII remedy of front pay is akin to that of back pay because it makes the worker whole for lost wages. As such, it should not be treated as an element of compensatory or punitive damages and limited by the statutory cap.

Employment law experts note this decision clarifies but does not change the current state of employment law in most jurisdictions. However, from a practical standpoint, it focuses attention on how plaintiffs structure requests for remedies. Where reinstatement or continued employment is not an option, the potential for front pay damages can be significant. One of the ways employers can limit the risk is by having viable and effective outplacement strategies that provide meaningful assistance when former employees are making the transition from one workplace to another.

©2001 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 29, 2016

Oxford, Alabama, City Council Adopts Ordinance Restricting Access to Bathroom Facilities Based on Biological Sex

April 29, 2016

The City Council of Oxford, Alabama, has enacted an ordinance regulating the utilization of bathroom or changing facilities within the City of Oxford, Alabama, making it unlawful for a person to use a bathroom or changing facility within the jurisdiction of the City that does not correspond to the person’s biological sex. The... Read More

April 29, 2016

Limiting Plaintiff’s Discovery on Similarly Situated Employees Reasonable, Federal Court Finds

April 29, 2016

Limiting a plaintiff’s pretrial discovery can be the key to defending an employment discrimination lawsuit. This point was aptly demonstrated in a federal appellate court ruling approving a district court’s denial of wide-ranging discovery and its summary judgment dismissal of an employee’s discrimination suit. Kuttner... Read More

April 29, 2016

Supreme Court: Government Employer’s Incorrect Belief About Employee’s Activity Matters in First Amendment Analysis

April 29, 2016

A government employer can violate an employee’s constitutional rights by acting based on incorrect information that, if true, would violate the U.S. Constitution, even though the employee was not actually exercising his or her constitutional rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a 6-2 decision. Heffernan v. City of Paterson,... Read More

Related Practices