Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
Filing
162
Opinion and Order - Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration 157 is GRANTED.Therefore, plaintififf is awarded summary judgment as to defendant's Affimative Defense 19, which is stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 9/19/2013 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (ecp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLA[\fD DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3: 11-cv-00832-HA
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
FRED MEYER STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
HAGGERTY, District Judge:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59( e), the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("plaintiff') moves this court to reconsider a pmiion of its June 17, 2013 Opinion
and Order [156]. Specifically, plaintiff moves the court to reconsider its denial of plaintiff's
request for summmy judgment as to Affirmative Defense 19 and its holding that there exists an
affinnative defense requiring the mitigation of emotional damages. For the reasons discussed
below, plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider [157] is granted.
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")
and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis
of sex and to provide relief to a class of current and fmmer employees of defendant Fred Meyer
Stores, Inc. In defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the First Amended Complaint,
defendant sets fmih Affhmative Defense 19, which asserts that plaintiffs class members had a
duty to mitigate damages, including emotional damages. In its Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [126], plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Affhmative Defense 19.
In its Opinion and Order, dated June 17, 2013, this comt denied plaintiffs request for
summaty judgment on Affirmative Defense 19. In so doing, this couti cited several cases that it
found persuasive in determining whether the duty to mitigate emotional damages was appropriate
in Title VII cases. Now, plaintiff asks that this couti reconsider its decision, on the basis that it
was manifestly unjust.
ANALYSIS
Reconsideration, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), is appropriate "in the
face of the existence of new evidence, an intervening change in the law, or as necessary to
prevent manifest injustice." Navajo Nation v. Corifederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). A motion for
reconsideration should not be granted absent "highly unusual circumstances," unless, inter alia,
the comi "committed clear enor." 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th
Cir. 1999). "Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the
couti." Navajo Nation, 331 F.3d at I 046. (citation,omitted).
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
This court acknowledges defendant's citation to Kana Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), which states that "[a] Rule 59(e) motion may not be
used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
been raised earlier in the litigation." (emphasis in original). However, the Ninth Circuit has also
held that "[a] court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration if the underlying
decision 'involved clear error of law.'" In re Onecast }vfedia, Inc., 439 F.3d 558, 561 (9th Cir.
2006) (quoting };fcDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)). In this case, the
court must remedy its clear error oflaw.
Plaintiff argues that Title VII contains no requirement that claimants mitigate their
compensatory damages, and through this court's Opinion and Order, it created a burden on
plaintiffs that Congress did not intend. Plaintiff cites a recent Supreme Court opinion, Texas
Southwestern l'vfedica/ Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2528 (2013), which states "it would be
improper to conclude that what Congress omitted from the statute is neve1iheless within its
scope." However, there is a presumption that Congress adjudicates against a backdrop of
common-law adjudicatory principles. Astoria Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. So/imino, 501 U.S.
I 04, 108 (1991 ). When a common law principle is well established, the courts may take it as
given that Congress has legislated with an expectation that the principle will apply except when a
statutory purpose to the contrary is evident. Id. Accordingly, defendant relies on the Ninth
Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions, which state that the plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable
eff01is to mitigate damages. Defendant asse1is that this duty is present regardless of whether the
duty was explicitly legislated by Congress.
While this comi found common law persuasive in denying plaintiffs request on summary
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
judgment, it is clear that this court en'ed by failing to consider Congress' "statut01y purpose" in
drafting Title VII, as it is required to do pursuant to the holding in Astoria Federal Sav. and Loan
Ass'n. Congress' statut01y purpose is most readily demonstrated by Congress' 1972 Amendments
to Title VII. In the I 972 Amendments, Congress explicitly chose to include a duty of claimants
to mitigate back pay losses. Pub. L. No. 92-261,86 Stat. 103, 107 (1972). Congress' deliberate
decision to carve out this duty to mitigate damages clearly signifies that Congress did not intend
to create a duty to mitigate all compensat01y damages. If Congress intended there to be a duty to
mitigate all compensat01y damages, it is illogical that it chose to single out the duty to mitigate
back pay alone. Because this court relied on common law when faced with an evident statutory
purpose, it committed clear error. Accordingly, reconsideration is appropriate and Title VII
claimants do not have a duty to mitigate emotional damages.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration [157] is GRANTED.
Therefore, plaintifi is awarded summmy judgment as to defendant's Affinnative Defense 19,
which is striken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
jJ_ day of September, 2013.
/
t~~~a~~~~~·~~~~~~~~! .
Ancer L. Hagge ·
United States District Judge
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?