United States District Court, S.D. Florida
OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD
OF FUTURE DAMAGES BASED UPON JURY'S VERDICT OF
KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for
Award of Future Damages Based Upon Jury's Verdict of
Liability [DE 258]. The motion is ripe for the Court's
consideration. The Court has reviewed all papers submitted in
connection with the motion, the entire file, and is otherwise
duly advised in the premises.
the Court will address a procedural issue that has arisen in
connection with the instant motion. Defendants have requested
an evidentiary hearing in connection with Plaintiff's
motion. They argue that there is evidence relevant to
Plaintiff's front pay claim that was not relevant during
the trial, and they want to present testimony and/or evidence
through affidavits. [DE 263 at 10].
opposes this request, noting that a stipulation was entered
into on this issue at the time of trial. [DE 269 at 11]. At a
sidebar with the Court, counsel for Defendants stated that
she would have no cross-examination of Mr. Moe. [1/29/18
Trial Testimony at 13:4-14:24, DE 259]. It was agreed that
the evidence of future damages would be done by written
submission. [Id.]. Plaintiff states that he would
not have agreed to the stipulation if Defendants had
disclosed that they intended to seek the ability to present
new evidence that was never disclosed before trial. [DE 259
have presented no explanation for their change in position.
Having voluntarily entered into the stipulation at trial, and
apparently having not disclosed any such additional evidence
prior to trial, the Court denies Defendants' request for
a hearing or oral argument.
have presented various factual arguments in opposition to the
motion that have no support in the record before the Court.
Nothing has been submitted other than statements of their
attorneys, which do not constitute evidence. By way of
example, Defendants argue that after Trimble was sold to
Aptean, the compensation plans were changed. Defendants
criticize Plaintiff's expert for not taking this into
account in his calculations, while at the same time
acknowledging that they did not present this testimony during
the trial. In rendering its decision herein, the Court has
not taken into account any purported evidence submitted by
Defendants solely via their attorney's statements.
obtained a verdict against Defendants under the Florida
Whistleblower Act [DE 241], Plaintiff is entitled to recover
his future economic damages. “[F]ront pay is simply
money awarded for lost compensation during the period between
judgment and reinstatement or in lieu of
reinstatement.” Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours
& Co., 532 U.S. 843, 846 (2001). Front pay is an
issue for the Court to decide after the jury returns a
verdict. Austrum v. Fed. Cleaning Contractors, Inc.,
14-cv-81245-KAM, 2016 WL 3526130, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 23,
of the Parties
parties both state that reinstatement is not the appropriate
remedy here, and the Court agrees. [DE 258 at 1-2, DE 263 at
2]. Defendants, however, also argue that front pay is
inappropriate. [DE 263 at 3].
has submitted a calculation of his future economic damages by
his expert witness, Roderick Moe, CPA. [DE 258-2]. Mr. Moe
calculates Plaintiff's future damages as totaling $517,
375, which he opines is the difference in wages and benefits
that he projects Mr. Tillman would have made had he continued
his employment with Trimble through age 70, compared to the
wages and benefits he projects Mr. Tillman will make at his
response, Defendants first argue that Plaintiff is not
entitled to an unreasonable and excessive award that
compensates him for the remainder of his working life.
Second, Defendants argue that the jury's award of back
pay fully compensated Plaintiff for any retaliation found by
the jury. Third, Defendants state Plaintiff produced no
competent evidence suggesting that his injuries have narrowed
the range of economic opportunities available to him.
Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff produced no
competent evidence suggesting that his injury has caused a
diminution in his ability to earn a living. [DE 263 at 2].
replies that he mitigated his damages and should, therefore,
be awarded the full amount of front pay he has requested. [DE
269 at 3-4]. He criticizes Defendants' mathematical
computations as unsupported by the record evidence.
[Id. at 5-8]. He further notes that a defendant
should not be heard to complain about the ...