Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 2001
• Docket Number: 00-763
• Parties: SHARON B. POLLARD, PETITIONER v. E. I. du PONT de NEMOURS & COMPANYSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

532 U.S. 843

121 S.Ct. 1946

150 L.Ed.2d 62

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press

SHARON B. POLLARD, PETITIONER v E. I. du PONT de NEMOURS & COMPANY

No. 00-763

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Argued April 23, 2001

Decided June 4, 2001

Syllabus

Petitioner Pollard sued respondent, her former employer, alleging that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Finding that Pollard was subjected to co-worker sexual harassment of which her supervisors were aware, and that the harassment resulted in a medical leave of absence for psychological assistance and her eventual dismissal for refusing to return to the same hostile work environment, the District Court awarded her, as relevant here, $300,000 in compensatory damages-the maximum permitted under 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3). The court observed that the award was insufficient to compensate Pollard, but was bound by an earlier Sixth Circuit holding that front pay-money awarded for lost compensation during the period between judgment and reinstatement or in lieu of reinstatement-was subject to the damages cap of 1981a(b)(3). The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Held: Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by 1981a(b)(3). Pp. 3-10.

(a) Under 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as originally enacted, when a court found that an employer had intentionally engaged in an unlawful employment practice, the court was authorized to award such remedies as injunctions, reinstatement, backpay, and lost benefits. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(1). Because this provision closely tracked the language of 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 10(c)'s meaning before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted provides guidance as to 706(g)'s proper meaning. In applying 10(c), the National Labor Relations Board consistently had made "backpay" awards up to the date the employee was reinstated or returned to the position he should have been in had the NLRA violation not occurred, even if such event occurred after judgment. Consistent with that interpretation, courts finding unlawful intentional discrimination in Title VII actions awarded this same type of backpay (known today as "front pay" when it occurs after the judgment) under 706(g). After Congress expanded 706(g)'s remedies in 1972 to include "any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate," courts endorsed a broad view of front pay, which included front pay awards made in lieu of reinstatement. By 1991, virtually all of the courts of appeals had recognized front pay as a remedy authorized by 706(g). In 1991, Congress further expanded the available remedies to include compensatory and punitive damages, subject to 1981a(b)(3)'s cap. Pp. 3-7.

(b) The 1991 Act's plain language makes clear that the newly authorized 1981a remedies were in addition to the relief authorized by 706(g). Thus, if front pay was a type of relief authorized under 706(g), it is excluded from the meaning of compensatory damages under 1981a and it would not be subject to 1981a(b)(3)'s cap. As the original language of 706(g) authorizing backpay awards was modeled after the same language in the NLRA, backpay awards (now called front pay awards under Title VII) made for the period between the judgment date and the reinstatement date were authorized under 706(g). Because there is no logical difference between front pay awards made when there eventually is reinstatement and those made when there is not, front pay awards made in lieu of reinstatement are authorized under 706(g) as well. To distinguish between the two cases would lead to the strange result that employees could receive front pay when reinstatement eventually is available but not when it is unavailable-whether because of continuing hostility between the plaintiff and the employer or its workers, or because of psychological injuries that the discrimination has caused the plaintiff. Thus, the most egregious offenders could be subject to the least sanctions. The text of 706(g) does not lend itself to such a distinction. Front pay awards made in lieu of reinstatement fit within 706(g)'s authorization for courts to "order such affirmative action as may be appropriate." Pp. 8-10. 213 F.3d 933, reversed and remanded.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except O'Connor, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether a front pay award is an element of compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. We conclude that it is not.

I

Petitioner Sharon Pollard sued her former employer, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), alleging that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. After a trial, the District Court found that Pollard was subjected to co-worker sexual harassment of which her supervisors were aware. The District Court further found that the harassment resulted in a medical leave of absence from her job for psychological assistance and her eventual dismissal for refusing to return to the same hostile work environment. The court awarded Pollard $107,364 in backpay and benefits, $252,997 in attorney's fees, and, as relevant here, $300,000 in compensatory damages-the maximum permitted under the statutory cap for such damages in 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3). The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the record demonstrated that DuPont employees engaged in flagrant discrimination based on sex and that DuPont managers and supervisors did not take adequate steps to stop it. 213 F.3d 933 (CA6 2000).

The issue presented for review here is whether front pay constitutes an element of "compensatory damages" under 42 U.S.C. 1981a and thus is subject to the statutory damages cap imposed by that section. Although courts have defined "front pay" in numerous ways, front pay is simply money awarded for lost compensation during the period between judgment and reinstatement or in lieu of reinstatement. For instance, when an appropriate position for the plaintiff is not immediately available without displacing an incumbent employee, courts have ordered reinstatement upon the opening of such a position and have ordered front pay to be paid until reinstatement occurs. See, e.g., Walsdorf v. Board of Comm'rs, 857 F.2d 1047, 1053-1054 (CA5 1988); King v. Staley, 849 F.2d 1143, 1145 (CA8 1988). In cases in which reinstatement is not viable because of continuing hostility between the plaintiff and the employer or its workers, or because of psychological injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the discrimination, courts have ordered front pay as a substitute for reinstatement. See, e.g., Gotthardt v. National R. R. Passenger Corp., 191 F.3d 1148, 1156 (CA9 1999); Fitzgerald v. Sirloin Stockade, Inc., 624 F.2d 945, 957 (CA10 1980). For the purposes of this opinion, it is not necessary for us to explain when front pay is an appropriate remedy. The question before us is only whether front pay, if found to be appropriate, is an element of compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and thus subject to the Act's statutory cap on such damages.

Here, the District Court observed that "the $300,000.00 award is, in fact, insufficient to compensate plaintiff," 16 F. Supp. 2d 913, 924, n. 19 (WD Tenn. 1998), but it stated that it was bound by the Sixth Circuit's decision in Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193 (1997), which held that front pay was subject to the cap. On appeal, Pollard argued that Hudson was wrongly decided because front pay is not an element of compensatory damages, but rather a replacement for the remedy of reinstatement in situations in which reinstatement would be inappropriate. She also argued that 1981a, by its very terms, explicitly excludes from the statutory cap remedies that traditionally were available under Title VII, which she argued included front pay. The Court of Appeals agreed with Pollard's arguments but considered itself bound by Hudson. The Sixth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc.

The Sixth Circuit's decision in Hudson was one of the first appellate opinions to decide whether front pay is an element of compensatory damages subject to the statutory cap set forth in 1981a(b)(3). Contrary to the Sixth Circuit's resolution of this question, the other Courts of Appeals to address it have concluded that front pay is a remedy that is not subject to the limitations of 1981a(b)(3). See, e.g., Pals v. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 499-500 (CA7 2000); Kramer v. Logan County School Dist. No. R-1, 157 F.3d 620, 625-626 (CA8 1998); Gotthardt, supra, at 1153-1154; Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 556 (CA10 1999); EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 619, n. 10 (CA11 2000); Martini v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn., 178 F.3d 1336, 1348-1349 (CADC 1999). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 531 U.S. 1069 (2001).

II

Plaintiffs who allege employment discrimination on the basis of sex traditionally have been entitled to such remedies as injunctions, reinstatement, backpay, lost benefits, and attorney's fees under 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(1). In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress expanded the remedies available to these...