THOMAS v. PENN UNITED TECHNOLOGY et al

Filing 138

ORDER: THEREFORE, this 20th day of July, 2011, it is ordered Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 135 ) is granted. It is further ordered that my order dated July 12, 2011, regarding evidence of back pay and front pay (ECF No. 131 ), is vacated. Finally, it is further ordered that Plaintiff is permitted to introduce evidence of back pay and front pay wage loss. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 7/20/11. (slh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROY D. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

PENN UNITED TECHNOLOGY, BILL
JONES, DAVID JONES and JAMES
FERGUSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 09-179

AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
On June 17, 2011 Defendant filed a Motion in Limine seeking to exclude evidence of
back pay /front pay damages. (ECF No. 102). On July 12, 2011, I granted Defendants’ Motion
and excluded Plaintiff from presenting any evidence of back pay or front pay damages for any
period on or after November 2, 2006. (ECF No. 131). On July 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of that order. (ECF No. 135). Defendants filed a Response in Opposition.
(ECF No. 137). After careful consideration of the same, I find there are sufficient grounds for
reconsideration.
Generally speaking, when an employee is disabled from working, the employer is not
responsible for any back pay or front pay for the period of total disability. Cleveland v. Policy
Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805-07 (1999); Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec.
Corp., 54 F.3d 1089, 1101 (3d Cir. 1995); Mason v. Association for Independent Growth, 817
F.Supp. 550, 554 (E.D.Pa. 1993). Where the employer’s conduct caused the disability, courts
have permitted plaintiffs to recover back pay and front pay. See, Starceski, 54 F.3d at 1101;
Savarese v. Agriss, 883 F.2d 1194, 1206 n.19 (3d Cir. 1989); McKenna v. City of Phil., 636
F.Supp.2d 446, 465 (E.D. Pa. 2009); Whitner v. Emory University, Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-

1518-TWT, 2008 WL 4224407, 26-27 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2008), citing Lathem v. Dept. of
Children and Youth Services, 172 F.3d 786, 794 (11th Cir. 1999); Worthington v. City of New
Haven, No. 3:94-CV-00609(EBB), 1999 WL 958627, 14-15 (D.Conn., Oct. 5, 1999).
In this case, there seems to be a genuine dispute as to whether Defendant’s conduct
caused Plaintiff’s injuries that rendered him unable to work in any capacity. As a result, I find
that Plaintiff can introduce at trial evidence of whether Plaintiff's total disability was caused by
Defendants’ alleged ADA violations as well as evidence related to back pay and front pay.1
THEREFORE, this 20th day of July, 2011, it is ordered Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. [135]) is granted. It is further ordered that my order dated July 12,
2011, regarding evidence of back pay and front pay (ECF No. [131]), is vacated. Finally, it is
further ordered that Plaintiff is permitted to introduce evidence of back pay and front pay wage
loss.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge

1

In so ruling, however, I make no comment at this time on whether there is any
applicable set off permitted.
2