Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Company
Decision Date | 09 May 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74-2052,74-2052 |
Parties | Bill L. BALLARD, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. EL DORADO TIRE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Eli H. Subin, Emery H. Rosenbluth, Jr., Orlando, Fla., for defendant-appellant-cross appellee.
J. Thomas Cardwell, George T. Eidson, Jr., Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee-cross appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before TUTTLE, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
This diversity action resulted from the allegedly wrongful discharge of plaintiff, Bill L. Ballard, a Florida citizen, by El Dorado Tire Company, a Michigan corporation. The District Court, sitting without a jury, awarded Ballard $46,352.20 in damages.
We affirm the award of damages and remand for further consideration of the other benefits hereinafter discussed.
El Dorado appeals, contending that the District Judge erred in failing to reduce Ballard's damages by the amount he might have earned in other employment during the unexpired term of his contract. Ballard cross appeals, contending that the District Court's calculation of damages erroneously failed to take into account certain fringe benefits due under the employment contract.
The employment contract was executed on May 31, 1969. It called for Ballard, an experienced tire salesman, to work in Orlando, Florida, for a 5 year term as Executive Vice President and General Manager of El Dorado's Florida subsidiary. The contract provided Ballard with generous compensation:
In addition Ballard was entitled, upon meeting certain conditions, to 20% of the subsidiary stock.
Other relevant contract provisions dealt with termination and non-competition:
This stipulation does not prevail in the event of termination by El Dorado. / s/ H.W.D.
The Ballard-El Dorado relationship was soon jeopardized by negotiations between El Dorado and one of its stockholders, Dodenhoff, who wanted to move to Florida to take over managment of the Florida subsidiary. These negotiations culminated in El Dorado's selling all its stock in the Florida subsidiary to Dodenhoff. The contract of sale was executed on July 11, 1971. The sales price included the 31,000 shares Dodenhoff held in El Dorado.
Ballard filed this action to determine his rights under his employment contract on October 19, 1971.
Upon receiving a copy of the complaint, Dodenhoff wrote Ballard telling him that the filing of suit constituted a "breach of contract" and a "voluntary resignation".
The District Court did not agree with Dodenhoff's assessment. It held El Dorado's sale of the subsidiary constituted a breach of contract, and that holding is not appealed.
El Dorado does appeal the Court's refusal to mitigate Ballard's damages by what he might have earned in other employment.
Ballard cross appeals the Court's holding that he was not entitled to compensation for loss of pension benefits and stock in El Dorado.
The District Court found as a fact that Ballard has not sought other employment. 1 Furthermore, the Court took note of the general principle that an employee's damages will be mitigated by what he could have earned in similar employment. E. g., 11 Williston on Contracts (3rd ed.) § 1358; Lerman v. Fruit Processors, Inc., D.C.Cir., 89 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 191 F.2d 349, citing Rest. Contracts, § 336, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 877, 72 S.Ct. 168, 96 L.Ed.2d 659 (1951); Latimer v. York Cotton Mills, 66 S.Ct. 135, 44 S.E. 559 (1903). The District Court's refusal to allow mitigation was based upon the theory that the burden to prove the existence of similar employment was upon the employer, and that El Dorado had failed to show that similar employment was available.
Our examination of the cases and of other authorities demonstrates that the District Court was correct. The universal rule is that an employee's damages will be mitigated only if the employer proves that similar employment opportunity was available. As explained in Dobbs, Remedies, § 12.25, p. 925:
The recovery is based on contract price, not on the contract price/market value differential so commonly used in sales cases. The employee need only prove the breach and the contract price when he is wrongfully discharged and this will warrant a judgment in his favor for all future installments due him, reduced to present value. If the employee has obtained a substitute job, or could obtain one by reasonable effort, he is chargeable with the income he obtains or could reasonably obtain in this fashion, but only if the employer sustains the burden of proving these facts.
According to the Third Circuit,
" " McAleer v. McNally Pittsburg Manufacturing Co., 3 Cir., 1964, 329 F.2d 273, quoting King v. Steiren, 44 Pa. 99.
For an extensive list of cases that have placed the burden to prove that similar employment was available upon the employer, see 11 Williston on Contracts § 1360.
Sensing the weight of authority against its position, El Dorado attempts to escape the burden of proving the existence of similar employment in two ways.
First, it points to the Non-Competition Clause in the contract. El Dorado says that by preventing Ballard from engaging in similar employment, the clause gave rise to a duty to mitigate by seeking any employment. It says, in other words, that the effect of an agreement not to compete in similar work is to change the employee's common law duty to mitigate by seeking similar employment to a duty to mitigate by seeking any employment. Ballard's damages therefore should be mitigated not by what he could have earned in similar employment but by what he could have earned in any employment.
The ready answer to this contention is that there is no such term in the contract. The contract speaks of a negative duty-the duty not to compete with the former employer by seeking similar employment. It does not include an affirmative promise to mitigate damages by seeking dissimilar employment. 2
A second and equally persuasive answer to El Dorado's argument is that the non-competition clause did not govern this termination. By its literal terms, the promise not to compete applied only to a voluntary termination. Ballard's termination was not voluntary. El Dorado's sale of the subsidiary made it impossible for it to perform its promises to Ballard. Ballard was powerless to prevent the contract termination. His employment termination was involuntary; therefore, the contract promise not to seek similar employment did not come into play.
As its next argument for escaping the burden of proving existence of similar employment, El Dorado cites our decision in Nello L. Teer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humphreys v. Medical Towers, Ltd.
...which the Title VII plaintiff held. Floca v. Homcare Health Servs., 845 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1988) (quoting Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Co., 512 F.2d 901, 906 (5th Cir.1975)); EEOC v. Exxon Shipping Co., 745 F.2d 967, 978 (5th Cir. 1984). The employer must show that work of substantially th......
-
Lou v. Belzberg
... ... City Financial Corporation; First City Trust Company; ... Roxboro Investments Ltd.; Bel-Fran Investments Ltd.; ... Bel-Cal ... ...
-
Garland v. Advanced Medical Fund, L.P. II
...of a contract promise... is not excused by failure of a condition which the promisor himself causes to happen." Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Co., 512 F.2d 901, 907 (5th Cir.1975). Because the Contribution, Assignment, and Transfer Agreement implies a promise that Paul Garland will indeed trans......
-
Hanna v. American Motors Corp.
...Corp., 639 F.2d 600, 627 (10th Cir.1980); Sias v. City Demonstration Agency, 588 F.2d 692, 696 (9th Cir.1978); Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Co., 512 F.2d 901, 906 (5th Cir.1975); NLRB v. Nickey Chevrolet Sales, Inc., 493 F.2d 103, 107-08 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 834, 95 S.Ct. 60, 42 ......
-
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment: Mitigation of Damages
...prove that the employment was available in the “specific line of work” in which the employee was engaged. Ballard v. Eldorado Tire Co., 512 F.2d 901, 906 (5th Cir. 1975) (emphasis by court). For example, the Ballard court required the employer to show that managerial work was available to t......
-
Defendant's motion for summary judgment: mitigation of damages
...prove that the employment was available in the “specific line of work” in which the employee was engaged. Ballard v. Eldorado Tire Co., 512 F.2d 901, 906 (5th Cir. 1975) (emphasis by court). For example, the Ballard court required the employer to show that managerial work was available to t......
-
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment: Mitigation of Damages
...prove that the employment was available in the “specific line of work” in which the employee was engaged. Ballard v. Eldorado Tire Co., 512 F.2d 901, 906 (5th Cir. 1975) (emphasis by court). For example, the Ballard court required the employer to show that managerial work was available to t......