Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Pollard v. E. I. du Pont
121 S. Ct. 1946 ; Clearinghouse Number: 53845
Description
Front Pay Awards in Title VII Cases Are Not Subject to the Damages Cap That 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) Imposes
Abstract
The Supreme Court held that front pay was not an element of
compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and thus not
subject to the damages cap section 1981a(b)(3) imposed. Petitioner
employee alleged that, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, her former employer subjected her to a hostile
work environment. Finding that petitioner had been sexually
harassed, the district court awarded her $300,000 in compensatory
damages—the maximum allowed under section 1981a(b)(3). The
Sixth Circuit affirmed, and petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court
found that plaintiffs who alleged employment discrimination on the
basis of sex traditionally had been entitled to such remedies as
injunctions, reinstatement, back pay, lost benefits, and attorney
fees under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the
Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress expanded the remedies available
to these plaintiffs by permitting, for the first time, recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, subject to a statutory cap. The
Court found that the 1991 Act’s plain language made clear
that the newly authorized section 1981a remedies were in addition
to the relief that section 706(g) authorized. The Court also found
that section 706(g) authorized back-pay awards (which Title VII
calls front-pay awards) for the period between the date of judgment
and the date of reinstatement. Because section 706(g) already
authorized front pay, the Court found that Congress had not limited
the availability of such awards under section 1981a. Instead, the
Court held, Congress sought to expand the available remedies by
permitting the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in
addition to previously available remedies, such as front pay.
