Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />the uncertainty of two factors: 1) whether they would have been <br />hired in the first place; and 2) hew long they would have held <br />their jobs had they been hired. <br />Defendants have noted that it is highly improbable that <br />plaintiffs could have obtained sworn police positions. With regard <br />to the second factor, extensive evidence shows that neither Starks <br />nor Fields would have lasted very long had he secured a police 30b. <br />Both plaintiffs were fired from previous jobs or left under <br />undesirable conditions. In addition, psychological examinations <br />cited many "reservations", indicating that neither plaintiff was an <br />appropriate candidate for emplcytnent as a police officer. Even Dr. <br />Meal, plaintiffs' e.xpert, caid certain police duties would be <br />inappropriate for plaintiffs. In short, plaintiffs' ability to <br />retain police employment is highly doubtful- <br />C. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR <br />MENTAL ANGUISH <br />Although damages for emotional distress are available under <br />the MHF-A. such an award is not appropriate here. Court holdings <br />require plaintiffs to show causation and objective proof of such <br />damages. <br />In dorQ V. Turner. 563 ?.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1977), the court <br />held that plaintiff was entitled to emotional distress damages for <br />a § 1981 violation. The court qualified this by stating that "an <br />award for e.motional distress .must be preceded by a finding of a <br />sufficient causal connection between the defendant's illegal <br />actions and the plaintiff's injury." at 164. <br />Emotional distress is customarily proven by showing the nature