Walsh v. Scarsdale Union Free School District

Background

Stephen P. Walsh sued the Scarsdale Union Free School District and Michael McDermott under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged that age discrimination created an intolerable work environment that forced him to retire at the end of the 2014–2015 school year, one year earlier than planned. He sought backpay for the 2015–2016 school year, frontpay for reduced retirement benefits, and other damages.

The court had previously denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Trial was scheduled to begin on June 1, 2020. The defendants then filed a pretrial motion in limine, which is a request to decide before trial whether proposed evidence may be used. They sought to exclude evidence of backpay and frontpay under Federal Rule of Evidence 104. Alternatively, they sought judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 12(h)(2), arguing that Walsh could not recover those damages as a matter of law.

Mitigation Issue

An employee claiming discrimination generally must make reasonable efforts to find suitable alternative employment to reduce the resulting losses. This is called the duty to mitigate damages. The employer generally bears the burden of proving both that suitable work existed and that the employee did not make reasonable efforts to obtain it. Even if an employee did not fully mitigate damages, some backpay may remain available if comparable work would have paid less than the former job.

The court explained that reasonableness depends on individual circumstances, including the employee’s age and experience, the job market, the nature of the job search, whether the employee remained in the labor market, and any emotional or physical effects of the employer’s conduct. Retirement is relevant but does not automatically bar backpay.

The defendants pointed to evidence that Walsh had not applied for work with other employers and had said he would not pursue substitute teaching. Walsh responded that he had not rejected a comparable job or transfer, that the defendants’ conduct caused anxiety, stress, and an ulcer, and that obtaining a comparable full-time teaching position for one year would not have been feasible.

Conversion to Summary Judgment

Because the parties submitted deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, letters, and other materials outside the pleadings, the court treated the defendants’ Rule 12(c) request as a Rule 56 summary-judgment motion. Rule 56 permits judgment only when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court found conflicting evidence about the extent and reasonableness of Walsh’s efforts to find suitable work. The disputes concerned his age, imminent retirement plans, experience, claimed emotional injuries, and the availability of other employment. The court concluded that a reasonable fact finder could determine that the defendants had not proved Walsh made no reasonable efforts to seek suitable employment.

Damages Evidence and Disposition

The court also rejected the request to exclude backpay and frontpay evidence. It found that the defendants had not shown the evidence was clearly inadmissible on every possible ground. Because the adequacy of Walsh’s mitigation efforts was properly for the jury, the court declined to categorically exclude otherwise admissible evidence concerning backpay and frontpay.

The court denied the defendants’ motion in limine in its entirety and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 51. The opinion did not decide the ultimate amount of any damages.