Piekarski v. Home Owners Sav. Bank, FSB
Decision Date | 06 December 1990 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-90-661. |
Citation | 752 F. Supp. 1451 |
Parties | Peter R. PIEKARSKI, Plaintiff, v. HOME OWNERS SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., f/k/a Western Minnesota Federal Savings and Loan Association, f/k/a Western Minnesota Savings and Loan Association, f/k/a Fergus Falls Savings and Loan Association; Knutson Mortgage Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Home Owners Federal Savings and Loan Association, a federally chartered savings and loan association; and M. Gene Donley, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
William P. Luther, Luther, Ballenthin & Carruthers, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Charles A. Mays and Lawrence P. Schaefer, Leonard, Street and Deinard, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants.
FINDINGS & ORDER ON DAMAGES
This wrongful termination from employment action, the liability phase of which was decided by the Minnesota State District Court1, is now before this court for a determination of damages.2
Plaintiff Peter R. Piekarski seeks to recover approximately $800,000.00 in damages arising out of defendants' wrongful termination of his employment on January 26, 1988. Prior to being fired, plaintiff served as vice-president in charge of mortgage lending at Home Owners Savings Bank in Fergus Falls, Minnesota.
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this action in November, 1988. Trial of the liability issues commenced November 28, 1989 before an advisory jury. The jury returned a verdict on December 7, 1989, finding defendants liable on plaintiff's breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, and intentional interference with contract claims. The state district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 20, 1990, adopting the advisory jury's verdict in all respects and providing a thoughtful and detailed explanation of the basis for its judgment.3 In particular, the state district court's conclusions of law read:
This court is governed by the state court's findings of fact for the purpose of determining damages and attaches a copy hereto as Appendix A. Consequently, this court need not provide a specific description of the facts giving rise to liability, and may instead focus on those facts and arguments particularly relevant to the damages issues.
Plaintiff seeks to recover the following amounts:
Wage and fringe benefit loss $614,290 Loss of opportunity, reputation and mental distress ............. 100,000 Punitive damages (against Donley) ......................... 100,000
Defendants contend that plaintiff is, at most, entitled to recover $60,487 for his wage and fringe benefit loss. Defendants further argue that plaintiff is not entitled to receive any award for loss of reputation or mental distress or punitive damages.
The court first seeks to determine the time frame within which plaintiff suffered a compensable loss of wages and fringe benefits. Plaintiff argues that he began suffering wage discrimination in 1984 and that he will never be able to earn a living comparable to that which he could have earned had he remained in defendant's employ. Thus, plaintiff seeks to recover for the prospective loss of wages through the year 2012, when plaintiff would reach age 65, and for the prospective loss of fringe benefits through 2031, when plaintiff would reach age 84. Defendants dispute plaintiff's allegation of wage discrimination, and contend that plaintiff is entitled to an award of back pay for the period commencing January 26, 1988, the date plaintiff was terminated, and ending no later than April 27, 1990, the date the Resolution Trust Corporation placed Home-Owners—Boston in conservatorship.
In support of his wage discrimination allegation, plaintiff contrasts his annual salary to the salaries of two fellow officers, David Leabo and Jeffrey Vye:
Year Piekarski Leabo Vye 1975 $11,400 $ 8,400 1976 13,200 $12,000 9,800 1977 15,840 15,840 11,850 1978 17,736 17,736 13,890 1979 20,000 20,000 16,083 1980 22,000 22,000 17,900 1981 24,500 25,000 20,150 1982 25,970 26,500 21,442 1983 27,540 28,920 28,920 1984 28,900 31,500 35,000 1985 30,900 35,400 40,000 1986 32,100 37,800 45,000 1987 33,000 39,900 46,500 1988 43,500 50,100 1989 46,200 52,800
Plaintiff directs the court's attention to 1984 and thereafter and attributes his relatively lower salary to retaliatory wage discrimination.4 Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendant Donley avenged plaintiff's refusal to commit perjury and engage in other improper conduct by holding plaintiff's salary behind that of his fellow officers and obstructing plaintiff's career path.5
Concerning defendant Donley's animosity toward plaintiff, the state district court found:
During and after the matter with Donley's parents, Donley's attitude toward Piekarski began to change. Piekarski simply could not satisfy Donley. Donley himself testified that after January 1983 he became unhappy with Piekarski's work. No mention was made of Piekarski's work prior to that time. * * * Personnel manager, David Leabo, and Jeffrey Vye also noticed that Donley's personal feelings toward Piekarski were affecting his business judgment.
The evidence does not enable this court to assess with mathematical precision the impact of defendant Donley's contempt for plaintiff upon plaintiff's salary from 1984 through 1987. For example, plaintiff failed to address the possibility that at least a portion of Leabo's salary increases resulted because of greater merit and responsibility vis-a-vis plaintiff. On the other hand, this court respects the state district court's determination that, in general, defendants' treatment of plaintiff "during and after the matter with Donley's parents" was tainted with retaliatory disdain and that decisions respecting plaintiff's wage and career path were tarnished. The court finds that plaintiff suffered a compensable loss of wage and career opportunity due to impermissible retaliation beginning in 1984.6
As noted earlier, plaintiff contends that he will likely suffer loss through the year 2031. Defendants dispute plaintiff's entitlement to front pay and offer three alternative dates for the conclusion of the damages period. First, defendants argue that plaintiff may recover damages only through April, 1988, when plaintiff became employed as a real estate salesperson and ceased actively searching for employment in the banking industry.
"Wrongfully discharged claimants must use reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages." Brooks v. Woodline Motor Freight, Inc., 852 F.2d 1061, 1065 (8th Cir. 1988). In this regard, the law requires "an honest, good faith effort." Id.; citing United States v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 625 F.2d 918, 938 (10th Cir.1979). Claimants normally mitigate damages by seeking comparable, alternative employment. The law does not require, however, that a claimant move from his home to temper the damage caused by a defendant's conduct. Coleman v. City of Omaha, 714 F.2d 804, 808 (8th Cir.1983). Once a claimant accepts new employment, his right to recover back or front pay does not necessarily terminate. See McIntosh v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., 767 F.2d 433, 435 (8th Cir.1985); State by Johnson v. Porter Farms, Inc., 382 N.W.2d 543, 550-51 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). A claimant's right to back or front pay terminates only if he (1) accepts employment in a different field (2) with the intention of voluntarily abandoning the pursuit of employment in the career field from which he was wrongfully terminated. Id.; Hanna v. American Motors Corp., 724 F.2d 1300, 1308 (7th Cir.1984); cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1241, 104 S.Ct. 3512, 82 L.Ed.2d 821 (1984); Miller v. Marsh, 766 F.2d 490, 492-93 (11th Cir.1985).
Here, the evidence shows that plaintiff adequately minimized his damages and that plaintiff did not voluntarily enter the real estate sales field in April, 1988 with the intention of abandoning employment in the banking industry. Within three months of being discharged by defendants, plaintiff visited the Fergus Falls Job Service office, placed applications and resumes with four businesses, personally contacted two other businesses, and discussed employment opportunities with others in the Fergus Falls community.7 These inquiries led to a real estate sales position in April, 1988, which plaintiff still holds today.
Significantly, the court recognizes that Fergus Falls is a small community, and that relatively few career openings in the banking industry exist. The court finds that the lack of comparable job opportunities (as well as plaintiff's need for income), and not plaintiff's personal desire to leave the banking field, caused plaintiff to accept immediately less remunerative employment as a real estate salesperson in April, 1988. Plaintiff remains willing and able to return to a comparable position in the banking industry should one arise. The record reveals, however, that plaintiff effectively exhausted his search for a position similar to that which he held at defendant Home Owners, and that continued, vigorous efforts at locating such a position in the Fergus Falls area would prove futile. Thus, the court finds that plaintiff's right to receive back pay is not limited by his April 18, 1988 employment as a real estate salesperson.
Defendants alternatively contend that the damages period must be limited to either one year, the duration of plaintiff's employment contract with Home...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petroskey v. LOMMEN, NELSON, COLE & STAGEBERG, PA
...to be particularly persuasive. See, Piekarski v. Home Owners Savings Bank, 759 F.Supp. 542 (D.Minn.1991); Piekarski v. Home Owners Savings Bank, 752 F.Supp. 1451 (D.Minn.1990) and particularly Appendix A at 12 We are uncertain if the Court's reference to the firing of Donley by Piekarski is......
-
Sasser v. Averitt Exp., Inc.
...associated with litigation. McIntosh v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., 767 F.2d 433, 435 n. 1 (8th Cir.1985); Piekarski v. Home Owners Sav. Bank F.S.B., 752 F.Supp. 1451, 1456 (D.Minn.1990).10 It first appeared in 1973 in a Title VII case, United States v. United States Steel Corp., 371 F.Supp. 1......
-
Spangler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...... See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f) (requiring "all pleadings to be so ...Indiana Nat'l Bank, 476 N.E.2d 888, 891 (Ind.App.1985) trans. ... steps, through statements printed in the owners manual accompanying its riding mowers, to warn ......
-
Hall v. Great Western Bank, B045945
...choice of forum issue without discussion of whether the regulation affected subject matter jurisdiction. In Piekarski v. Home Owners Sav. Bank, F.S.B. (D.Minn.1990) 752 F.Supp. 1451, liability was determined in the state court, and the action was then removed to the federal court for determ......