Clark v. Golden Specialty

Filing 151

MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 144 Motion to Amend the Judgment to Order Reinstatement, by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

PAUL CLARK,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
C14-1412 TSZ

v.
GOLDEN SPECIALTY, INC. and
SCOTT SWIGGARD,

MINUTE ORDER

Defendants.
12
13

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

14

(1)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment to Order Reinstatement, docket
no. 144, is DENIED. The Court declines to modify the Judgment to include
reinstatement. First, the evidence before the Court makes clear that reinstatement would
be infeasible because of the significant friction created by the parties’ animosity towards
each other. See Little v. Technical Specialty Products, LLC, 940 F. Supp. 2d 460, 480
(E.D. Tex. April 15, 2013) (noting that “future wages are recoverable as an alternative to
reinstatement where reinstatement is not feasible”); see also Avitia v. Metropolitan Club
of Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219, 1230-31 (7th Cir. 1995). Second, the jury was instructed
that in calculating its award of economic damages it should consider the reasonable value
of earnings lost, if any, up to the present time (i.e. back pay) and with reasonable
probability, to be experienced in the future (i.e. front pay). See Jury Instructions, docket
no. 130 at 19. Consistent with plaintiff’s proposed special verdict form, docket no. 109
at 7, the Court’s verdict form provided a single blank for the jury to fill in its award of
economic damages without breaking out the awards for front and back pay. See Jury
Verdict, docket no. 136 at 2. As a result, the jury’s calculation of plaintiff’s economic
damages encompasses any front pay and any back pay the jury believed was appropriate,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

MINUTE ORDER - 1

1 and leaves the Court no way of separating out the front pay award to grant reinstatement
as an alternative. Plaintiff did not object or except to either the Court’s instructions or its
2 verdict form and therefore, has effectively elected front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
Finally, reinstatement is an equitable claim which the Court declines to order under the
3 circumstances of this case.
4
5

(2)
record.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 15th day of December, 2016.

6
William M. McCool
Clerk

7
8

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2