Valuing economic damages in Title VII cases is more difficult than other types of cases like personal injury or breach of contract. In Title VII cases, there is a seniority-based benefits loss component that is unique and cannot be recovered with new employment. This makes it a permanent loss. Expert testimony is often excluded in these cases, so it’s important to understand the legal standards and present the damages properly to the court and jury. This article will explain the unique challenges of valuing economic damages in Title VII cases and how to structure the expert report to maximize the client’s award. This article discusses how companies with employee benefit programs designed to avoid discrimination issues are more sensitive to Title VII discrimination problems. It also explores the core valuation issues that must be addressed when determining damages for discrimination cases. The components of loss in Title VII cases are less certain than in personal injury cases, and the article delves into the factors that affect the certainty of these losses. When someone files a Title VII employment termination case, it can be harder for them to find a new job because people may avoid them due to the controversy. The length of time and demand for their skills in the job market can also affect this. Plus, the evidence for the extent of damages is mostly known by the person suing and their former employer, which can make it hard to prove in court. An attorney should investigate the person’s claims before taking the case, and an economic expert shouldn’t have to check if the person’s claims are true. When someone is wrongfully fired from their job due to discrimination, figuring out the amount of money they lost can be really complicated. There are different layers of loss to consider, like past underemployment and future lost potential earnings. This makes it hard to determine the exact amount of money the person should be compensated. Plus, there are time limits for how far back you can go to calculate these losses. So, even if someone wasn’t underemployed in the past, they still may have missed out on promotions and raises if they hadn’t been fired. When there’s uncertainty in a valuation, the valuator needs to disclose the extent of the uncertainty and calculate the potential losses. This helps in dealing with challenges and arguments. But there’s a question of which valuation method to use: explicit or implicit? An explicit valuation measures each possible loss separately, but reliable data isn’t available for our case. So, we’ll use an implicit approach, which calculates the total loss by considering the relationship between different economic factors. This helps us get a more accurate estimate of the actual loss. The purpose of back pay is to compensate an employee for an unfair termination, while front pay is awarded if the court decides not to reinstate the employee. The court decides whether to award front pay. Back pay can be awarded by the court or jury, while compensatory and punitive damages are the jury’s responsibility. The court has to make sure future damages don’t exceed what’s necessary for compensation. Front pay and back pay damages need to be clearly distinguished in the report.
In Florida, if the court lets the jury decide the amount of back pay, the expert can only testify about back pay. This makes it difficult to explain past losses to the jury if total damages are valued implicitly. It’s best to use the implicit method for total damages, but the explicit method for past losses. This will make the valuation consistent. When predicting future income loss from a Title VII case, the valuator will have to rely on information provided by the plaintiff, which may be challenged by the defense. Both sides will use experts to support their claims, but it’s difficult to predict the impact of a Title VII case on future job prospects. The valuation report should disclose the assumptions and methods used, and address any weaknesses or uncertainties. It’s important for the plaintiff to confront these challenges directly, rather than trying to avoid them. Employers provide benefits like health insurance and retirement plans to take care of their employees’ well-being and future. It helps keep employees healthy and able to work, and it ensures they have money when they retire. If an employer doesn’t offer good benefits, it could make older employees feel unwelcome and lead to legal issues. After World War II, companies offered traditional retirement plans for long-term employees. But recently, many companies have switched to 401(k) plans, where employees are responsible for saving for retirement. The traditional plans gave employees a set monthly benefit based on their final salary, which often gave them a big reason to retire. If employees didn’t retire, the company would have to keep paying them while also paying retirement benefits to new retirees. So, the company might be happy if older employees retired and were replaced by younger workers. Many companies want their employees to retire early, so they offer extra money if the employee retires before a certain age. This can be based on how long the employee has worked for the company and their age. Some companies even offer a special plan with extra money for employees who choose to retire early. This gives employees a big reason to retire early, and many will take advantage of the offer. Some companies promise benefits to employees when they retire, but then don’t follow through. This can be illegal and might be considered age discrimination. Other companies offer special holidays and programs to help with discrimination issues. Offering good benefits can help reduce discrimination in the workplace. This is a collection of legal cases and statutes related to employment discrimination and compensation. It includes information about front pay damages, whistleblower protection, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The document also includes references to pension plans and retirement benefits, as well as legal cases related to these topics. Jerry Reiss is a certified expert in valuation work and provides testimony and support services. His office is in Ft. Lauderdale. Stuart A. Rosenfeldt is a labor and employment lawyer and serves as chair of The Florida Bar Labor and Employment Law Section. He practices in Ft. Lauderdale. This column is from the Labor and Employment Law Section.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/valuing-economic-damages-in-employment-litigation-from-a-plaintiffs-perspective-part-i/
Leave a Reply