KENGERSKI v. THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL et al

Filing 260

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 221 motion for prejudgment interest. Consistent with Mr. Kengerski's expert's calculations at ECF 259 -1, the Court awards $67,565 as prejudgment interest on backpay to Mr. Kengerski. An amended judgment consistent with this Order and the Court's 254 Order on the motions to amend the judgment follows. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 4/25/2023. (pak)

Case 2:17-cv-01048-NR Document 260 Filed 04/25/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY KENGERSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:17-cv-1048-NR

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Following a jury verdict in his favor, Plaintiff Jeffrey Kengerski moved for an
order from the Court awarding him backpay and front pay, as well as prejudgment
interest on his backpay and compensatory damages awards. ECF 221. On January
20, 2023, this Court awarded backpay and front pay, but held the issue of
prejudgment interest in abeyance. ECF 240. Following additional briefing and a
supplemental expert report from the parties, the Court now turns to that issue. In
short, the Court will grant Mr. Kengerski’s request for prejudgment interest on
backpay, but declines to award prejudgment interest on his compensatory damages
award.
The Court has discretion to award prejudgment interest; however, there is “a
strong presumption in favor of awarding prejudgment interest, except where the
award would result in ‘unusual inequities.’ Accordingly, a district court may exercise
its discretion to depart from this presumption only when it provides a justification
that reasonably supports the departure.” Booker v. Taylor Milk Co., 64 F.3d 860, 868
(3d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up).
Turning first to backpay, the Court finds that prejudgment interest on Mr.
Kengerksi’s backpay is appropriate considering the “strong presumption” favoring
that award. Allegheny County’s only argument against it is that Mr. Kengerski failed

Case 2:17-cv-01048-NR Document 260 Filed 04/25/23 Page 2 of 3

to mitigate his damages. ECF 258, p. 5. That argument misses the mark for two
reasons. First, both the Court, in its order on backpay, and the jury, implicitly in its
verdict, found Mr. Kengerski mitigated his damages, so any argument to the contrary
is inapposite. ECF 240, pp. 6-10. Second, it is well-settled that “a plaintiff’s failure
to mitigate damages, alone, is insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of a
prejudgment interest award.” Booker, 64 F.3d at 869. Since the County offers no
other argument to overcome the presumption favoring prejudgment interest on
backpay, the Court will award that interest at the requested, undisputed rate of 6%.
ECF 528, p. 4 n.2 (withdrawing opposition to 6% legal rate of interest).
But the Court denies Mr. Kengerski’s motion as to interest on compensatory
damages. The purpose of prejudgment interest is “to compensate a plaintiff for the
loss of the use of money that the plaintiff otherwise would have earned had he not
been unjustly discharged.”

Booker, 64 F.3d at 868. Accordingly, “it is entirely

consistent with this purpose not to award interest on money that [the plaintiff] would
have earned in the future (front pay) or would never have earned but for the jury
verdict (punitive and pain and suffering damages).” Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases,

Inc., 940 F. Supp. 814, 817 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
Mr. Kengerski’s recovery for compensatory damages is not money he
“otherwise would have earned had he not been unjustly discharged.” The Court
specifically instructed the jury that compensatory damages represent recovery “for
any pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, or loss of enjoyment of life that
Mr. Kengerski experienced as a consequence of the county’s allegedly unlawful act,”
and distinguished that award from lost past and future wages and benefits. ECF
232, 155:4-16 (cleaned up). The Court further instructed the jury that the “damages
that you award must be fair compensation, no more and no less. The awarded

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-01048-NR Document 260 Filed 04/25/23 Page 3 of 3

compensatory damages is meant to put Mr. Kengerski in the position he would have
occupied if the retaliation had not occurred.” Id. at 153:22-25.
For this reason, the Court concludes that the jury’s compensatory damages
award already represents the full amount that would make Mr. Kengerski whole, and
to grant prejudgment interest on top of it “would be inequitable.” Booker, 64 F.3d at
868 (cleaned up). Mr. Kengerski points to no case from the Third Circuit that would
permit the Court to find otherwise.
*********************
For these reasons, this 25th day of April, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest (ECF 221) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. Consistent with Mr. Kengerski’s expert’s calculations at ECF 2591, the Court awards $67,565 as prejudgment interest on backpay to Mr. Kengerski.
An amended judgment consistent with this Order and the Court’s Order (ECF 254)
on the motions to amend the judgment follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan
United States District Judge

-3-