1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Rosval A. Patterson, SBN 018872 Patterson & Associates, P.L.L.C. 777 East Thomas Road, Suite 210 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Tel.: (602) 462-1004 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for the Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CIV 04-429 PHX MHM
Alexander Jung, Plaintiff, vs. John E. Potter, Postmaster General , Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION OF DAMAGES
Plaintiff, Alexander Jung, submits this Motion in Limine seeking to preclude ANY testimony, evidence, argument or instruction from Defendant on the affirmative defense of Plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiff's motion is based on the fact that Defendant has failed to disclose or offer evidence as to Plaintiff's mitigation of damages. This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
22 23 24 25
During discovery, Defendant failed to disclose any evidence, witness or testimony demonstrating the availability of equivalent jobs between the date of termination and the proposed date of trial. Defendant also failed to present evidence, witnesses or testimony
1
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM
Document 96
Filed 03/02/2007
Page 1 of 4
1 2
that Plaintiff failed to search for employment after he was terminated by Defendant. Because Defendant has not produced such evidence, it cannot sustain its burden of proof on the affirmative defense of mitigation of damages.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The Ninth Circuit has set very specific requirements for the proof required to demonstrate that a plaintiff failed to meet his duty to mitigate damages in light of the requirement that a party claiming discrimination "use reasonable diligence in finding other suitable employment." See Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982). As a general rule, the employer in a discrimination case has the burden of proving the failure to mitigate damages. See, Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1994); Sangster v. United Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1980) cert denied 451 U.S. 971 (1981). In order to satisfy the proof necessary to sustain the defense, an
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
employer must prove: 1) that based on the undisputed facts in the record, during the time in question there were substantially equivalent jobs available, which the plaintiff could have obtained and 2) that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable diligence in seeking such a job. See Odima, supra at 1497 citing EEOC v. Farmer Bros., Co., 31 F.3d 891, 906 (9th Cir. 1994). In both Odama and Farmer Bros. the Ninth Circuit recognized that an employer is required to satisfy both criteria to sustain its burden of proof on the affirmative defense of mitigation of damages. In Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1994), the employer claimed that the employee failed to mitigate his damages by not making a reasonable job
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
search, but presented no evidence of available comparable employment. The Court rejected the asserted mitigation of damages defense and found no Ninth Circuit authority that the employer did not have to meet its burden of proof with regard to available employment, even in situations where the employer argued that the employee completely failed to look for any employment. The Court rejected the employer's mitigation of damages defense because the employee looked for other employment. Odima at 1497. In the present case, Defendant must show that "substantially equivalent jobs" were available and Plaintiff failed to use "reasonable diligence" in seeking work. If Defendant
25
2
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM
Document 96
Filed 03/02/2007
Page 2 of 4
1 2
fails to provide evidence of both criteria, Defendant's mitigation of damages defense fails. Defendant has failed to disclose any evidence or testimony that would support
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
either requirements for a mitigation of damages defense. Eliminating an affirmative defense that is wholly unsupported serves to avoid issues that are without merit. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order precluding any testimony, evidence, argument or instruction from Defendant on the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages. Dated this 2nd day of March, 2007
s/Rosval A. Patterson Rosval A. Patterson 777 E. Thomas Rd. #210 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Attorney for the Plaintiff
3
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM
Document 96
Filed 03/02/2007
Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2nd of March, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF Systems for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing for the following CM/ECF registrants: [email protected]
By: s/Stephanie Coulter Stephanie Coulter
4
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM
Document 96
Filed 03/02/2007
Page 4 of 4