Bingman v. Baltimore County

Filing 105

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: Motion for Reinstatement. Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement 100 remains pending; denying as mmoot 103 Defendant's request to defer the entry of judgment. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 10/26/2016. (krs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LARRY R. BINGMAN

*
Plaintiff

vs.

*
*

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

*

Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-13-2678

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT
The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reinstatement [ECF No. 100] and the materials submitted relating
thereto and Defendant’s request to defer the entry of judgment
[ECF No. 103].

The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary

at this time.

I.

Reinstatement or Front Pay
The Court must exercise its discretion regarding any

equitable remedy of reinstatement or front pay in light of the
facts and circumstances of the case. Equal Employment
Opportunity Comm’n v. Kallir, Philips, Ross Inc., 420 F. Supp.
919, 926 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff’d sub nom. E.E.O.C. v. Kallir,
Philips, Ross, Inc., 559 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir. 1977).
As stated in the Memorandum and Order Re: Injunction Motion
[ECF No. 97]:

As to reinstatement, the Court requires at
least facts regarding Plaintiff’s present
ability to perform the essential functions
of the job to which he seeks reinstatement,
and what will occur vis-à-vis Social
Security should he be reinstated.
As to front pay, the Court requires at least
facts regarding when he would have retired
absent the wrongful termination and
appropriate offsets – such as disability
benefits – to be taken into account in
setting any front pay.
The parties’ briefing of the instant motion reflects the
existence of material factual issues regarding Plaintiff’s
request for equitable relief.

An evidentiary hearing is

necessary to resolve these issues.

II. Deferral of Judgment
In view of the need to conduct evidentiary proceedings
regarding Plaintiff’s request for equitable relief and
Defendant’s stated intention to file post-trial motions, the
entry of Judgment is not imminent.

Moreover, the Court has

stated that it will grant pre-judgment interest from the date of
the verdict to the date of the entry of Judgment.

Therefore,

the Defendant’s request for a deferral of the entry of Judgment
is moot.

2

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reinstatement [ECF No. 100]
remains pending.

2.

Plaintiff shall, by November 23, arrange a telephone
conference regarding the scheduling of further
proceedings herein, including an evidentiary hearing
on the said Motion for Reinstatement and the filing
of further post-trial motions and any argument
thereon.

3.

Defendant’s request to defer the entry of judgment
[ECF No. 103] is DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3