Calculating Economic Losses in Tenth Circuit Employment Termination Cases, 0920 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 8 Pg. 30

Position:Vol. 49, 8 [Page 30]

Calculating Economic Losses in Tenth Circuit Employment Termination Cases

Vol. 49, No. 8 [Page 30]

Colorado Lawyer

September, 2020

August, 2020



Tis article reviews Tenth Circuit guidance on addressing economic damage calculations for lost pay in employment termination cases.

The Civil Rights Act protects workers from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.1 Similarly, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers on the basis of age,2 the Americans with Disabilities Act on the basis of disability,3 and the Family and Medical Leave Act on the basis of pregnancy.4 These legal protections have recently been extended.

Tree federal circuit courts reached conflicting opinions regarding whether Title VII protections through the Civil Rights Act are provided for workers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment cases.5 As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed these cases and recently determined in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that employment protections extend to workers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.6 Consequently, economic damage awards for lost pay will likely now become more prevalent.

Attorneys may ask an accountant or economist to calculate the present value of a plaintiff ’s economic damages for the court. Tis article examines eight key elements to be addressed when calculating economic damages from lost pay in employment termination cases: back and front pay, employee benefits, work life expectancy, mitigation and collateral benefits, pay increases, net present value, prejudgment interest, and tax differentials. The article focuses on guidance from the Tenth Circuit for calculating these elements.

Back and Front Pay

Federal courts attempt to make wronged plaintiffs in employment termination cases whole with awards for lost pay.7 Plaintiffs may be awarded damages for lost back pay,8 from the discharge to the trial, and lost front pay,9 from the trial onward. In the Tenth Circuit, reinstatement is preferred to a front pay award,10 and front pay is only awarded when (1) the employer is hostile, (2) it is impossible for the working relationship to be amicable, or (3) animosity caused by the lawsuit has irreparably damaged the employer-employee relationship.11

Economists may calculate damages for lost pay for the court.12 Factors the Tenth Circuit considers when awarding damages for lost front pay include:

work life expectancy, salary and benefits at the time of termination, any potential increase in salary through regular promotions and cost of living adjustment, the reasonable availability of other work opportunities, the period within which a plaintiff may become re-employed with reasonable efforts, and methods to discount any award to net present value.13

Employee Benefits

A meaningful portion of a worker’s compensation—about 30%, on average—is provided in the form of employee benefits.14 Damages for lost employee benefits are awardable in federal employment termination cases.15 Examples of employee benefits that Tenth Circuit courts have considered as damages include lost “medical, dental, and vision benefits” and “the ability to participate in the company’s 401(k), short-term disability, life insurance, and accidental death and dismemberment plans.”16

Economists and accountants have calculated for the court the value of lost employee benefits, including the value of lost stock options.17 For these valuations, some economists have used national average employee benefit rates.18 Courts have also projected the value of lost employee benefits as a percent of annual salary (e.g., employee benefits equal 15% of pay).[19]

Federal circuits are split in employment cases about whether to measure damages for lost health insurance benefits as the terminated worker’s actual out-of-pocket replacement expenses (or subsequent medical costs when the health insurance was not replaced) or the premium costs to the terminating employer.20 The Tenth Circuit has used both procedures, but a new approach was recently proposed in a district court within the Tenth Circuit where lost back health insurance benefits would be based on a plaintiff's replacement costs, and lost future health insurance benefits, for which there cannot yet be out-of-pocket expenses, would be projected as a percentage of pay.21

Work Life Expectancy

Courts must specify an end date when awarding lost front pay.22 Courts in the Tenth Circuit have awarded lost pay for relatively short periods, such as two years of back pay and no front pay,23 and for relatively long periods, such as 13 years of lost front pay.24 The Tenth Circuit suggests considering the period represented by work life expectancy.25 Economists define work life expectancy to be remaining years in the labor force and have calculated work life expectancy for the court to common retirement ages, such as age 65 or 70.26

Mitigation and Collateral benefits

Terminated workers are obligated to mitigate damages by searching for suitable alternative employment.27Economic losses should then be calculated as lost pay reduced by actual or projected earnings from mitigation.28

Damages for lost back or front pay are not precluded by inadequate mitigation, but the damage award for lost pay should be reduced by the amount that the plaintiff could have earned from comparable alternative employment.29 The plaintiff “need not go into another line of work, accept a demotion, or take a demeaning position.”[30] Further, terminated Plaintiffs are not required to be successful in their mitigation efforts, but they must put forth reasonable exertion to mitigate damages.31

The burden of proving that the plaintiff failed to adequately mitigate damage rests with the defendant.[32] In the Tenth Circuit, the defendant must prove both the existence of suitable alternative positions and that the plaintiff did not use reasonable care and diligence seeking them.[33] This is different than several other federal circuits, where it is now no longer necessary to provide evidence of suitable alternative positions when the plaintiff has not used reasonable, diligent efforts to search for them.34 Unlike these circuits, the Tenth Circuit has not relaxed this requirement.[35]

A collateral source rule generally precludes the deduction of third party benefits from a damage award. In employment cases, courts in most federal circuits, including the Tenth Circuit, retain discretion to deduct collateral benefits.36 Collateral benefits that cannot be deducted i n the Tenth Circuit include unemployment benefits37and disability benefits.38

However, severance pay from the terminating employer would not constitute a collateral benefit and should be offset from the damages.39 Results for other types of benefits are mixed. Social Security income has been deducted in some cases,40 but not others;41 similarly, pension income has been deducted in some cases,[42] but not others.43

Pay Increases

Economic statistics show that wages grow over time, due to price inflation and advances in labor productivity, and with age, as workers are trained and gain experience over a career. One of the factors to consider when awarding front pay in the Tenth Circuit is “potential increase[s] in salary through regular promotions and cost of living adjustment[s].”44

Economists and accountants have included wage increases in their front pay calculations (e.g., 3.5% annually in one case),45 but Tenth Circuit courts do not always explicitly incorporate wage growth in damage awards for lost front pay.46 Other federal circuits have denied adjustments for wage growth as too speculative, absent expert testimony or evidence of past patterns of wage increases.47

Net Present Value

Future losses in Tenth Circuit employment cases should be discounted to “net present value.”48 Tis is because a lump sum paid today (or at the time of judgment) can grow with interest over time if invested. The present value is the amount of money today that, when invested, will grow with interest to equal the future sum of money. The lower the discount (or interest) rate, the larger the present value of future losses must be. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that the interest rate used for present value discounting should be based on “the best and safest investments.”49

Various approaches for calculating present value have been used in the Tenth Circuit, and the method of first including wage growth and then separately discounting lost future pay to present value has long been approved of.50 However, some courts in the Tenth Circuit have used a “net discount rate,” which equals the interest rate for discounting minus the wage growth rate.51 Tis approach assumes the difference in the interest rate on investments and the rate of wage inflation are constant and accounts for both simultaneously with one rate—the net discount rate.52 Forensic economists in this circuit have debated whether an appropriate net discount rate is 2% or 4%,53 and a recommended range of 1% to 3% was cited by one court within the Tenth Circuit.54

In a third approach, several courts in the Tenth Circuit have explicitly refrained from adjusting future losses for present value or for subsequent pay increases.55 This approach, known as the “total-offset method,” is based on the assumption that the discount rate and wage growth rate are equal and cancel each other out.

Prejudgment Interest

Courts in the Tenth Circuit have the discretion to award prejudgment interest on economic losses, but prejudgment interest is not a right and has been denied.56 The court must determine whether prejudgment interest would “compensate the...

To continue reading