08-28-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

found discrimination but denied front pay. The court found that such an award would have been too speculative, because of two factors: (1) the uncertainty of a hiring date; and (2) disputed issues between the parties about the plaintiff's competency and ability to get along with her co-workers and superiors. These factors cast doubt on how long p.aintiff would have continued in employment had she been hired. In McKenncn v. Nashville Banner, 115 S.Ct. 879 (1995), the Supreme Court, in holding that later-discovered evidence of misconduct which impairs a plaintiff's fitness for continued emiplovment bars reinstatement or front pay. In Cos ton V. Flitt Theatres, 831 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir. 1987), the court awarded other damages but denied front pay, based on the speculative nature of tne remedy on the facts. Specifically, the court noted that neither party addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff intended to work, or was physically capable of working, until his full retirem.ent age. In McNeil V. Cconom.ics Laboratcm/, Inc., 800 F.2d 111 (7th Cir. 1986), the appeals court was unwilling to award the plaintiff front pay up to age 70 (plaintiff was already 65) after a finding of age discrimination in an .iCE.i claim.. Based on insufficient evidence, the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that he would have received a prcm.ction, and that he would have been likely •v/ork to age 70. As in the above cases neither plaintiff should be entitled to any front pay. Such an av;ard is too speculative when considering 14