SPIVAK
v.
COULTER ELECTRONICS, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In an ADEA case where the jury found against plaintiff, the court held that if front pay had been awarded, its calculation would be within the court's equitable discretion rather than a jury matter.
Front pay calculations in employment discrimination cases are matters of equitable discretion for the court, not jury determination.
[1] Front pay in employment discrimination cases is an equitable remedy to be calculated by the court in its discretion, not submitted to the jury.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the amount of such entitlement would have been a matter within the Court's equitable discretion, rather than one for jury determination”
Court's reasoning on the proper allocation of authority between judge and jury regarding front pay
Plaintiff brought an ADEA claim against Coulter Electronics and moved for a jury instruction on calculating front pay in the event of a favorable verd…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Front Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
SPELLMAN, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court during a Jury Trial in this matter under the ADEA upon Plaintiff’s Motion that the Jury be instructed to calculate the amount of front pay to which the Plaintiff would have been entitled, should the Jury find for the Plaintiff and should the Court find that front pay was an equitably proper element of relief in this case. Inasmuch as the Jury found against the Plaintiff, the Court need not reach this issue.
The Court is of the opinion, however, after thoroughly researching the issue, that the law of this Circuit is clear. Had the Jury found for the Plaintiff and had the Court deemed the Plaintiff entitled to front pay as a matter of equity, the Court is of the opinion that the amount of such entitlement would have been a matter within the Court’s equitable discretion, rather than one for jury determination. The Court reaches this opinion relying on the case of
Goldstein v. Manhattan Industries, Inc.,
758 F. 2d 1435 (11th Cir.),
reh’g den.,
765 F. 2d 154 (11th Cir.1985) and notes that, although the Court did not specifically so hold, the Court’s language in
Goldstein
strongly suggests this result.
See Dominic v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.,
822 F. 2d 1249 (2d Cir.1987). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiffs proposed instruction is DENIED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denison v. Swaco Geolograph Co., 941 F.2d 1416 (10th Cir. 1991)…Gibson v. Mohawk Rubber Co., 695 F. 2d 1093, 1100 (8th Cir.1982); Stafford v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 741 F.Supp. 664, 666 (E.D.Mich.1990); Chace v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 725 F.Supp. 868, 871 (D.Md.1989); Spivak v. Coulter Electronics, Inc., 686 F.Supp. 897 (S.D.Fla.1988); Miller v. Pabst Brewing Co., 670 F.Supp. 1420 (E.D.Wis.1987), aff'd, 870 F. 2d 1198 (7th Cir.1989); Ventura v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 571 F.Supp. 48, 51 (N.D.Ill.1983). Conversely, by implication or with little discussion, a number…
Authorities Cited
- Goldstein v. Manhattan Indus., Inc., 758 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Dominic v. Consol. Edison Co. OF NEW York, Inc., 822 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1987)