Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
September 12, 2002, Submitted ; November 18, 2002, Filed
[*1057] BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
Dorman Hartley, a former employee, sued Dillard's, Inc., a department store chain, for age discrimination after his termination. A jury awarded Hartley back pay of $ 237,669.00. Based on a wilfulness finding by the jury, the district court 1 awarded Hartley front pay of $ 246,774.05, and attorney's fees and costs of $ 65,268.86. Dillard's then filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative a new trial. The district court denied Dillard's motion. Dillard's brought this timely appeal. Dillard's argues that the district court erred in denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to decide discrimination, that on [**2] the alternative motion for a new trial the court erred in instructing the jury on motive, that the testimony of Hartley's economist expert should have been excluded, and that the calculation of back pay and front pay was incorrect. We affirm the judgment.
Dillard's hired Hartley in 1987. In 1989, Dillard's promoted Hartley to the store manager position at its McCain Mall store in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Beginning in mid-1995, sales and profits at the McCain Mall Dillard's began declining. Hartley was unable to meet the annual sales and profit goals Dillard's had set for the McCain Mall store for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and the beginning of 1999.
In 1998, Dillard's experienced changes in upper level management. Dillard's promoted Tom Patterson to be the Little Rock district manager. Patterson served as Hartley's immediate supervisor. Dillard's also named Burt Squires as the new [**3] Corporate Vice President of Stores for the Arkansas Division.
Between July 1998 and June 1999, Hartley, Patterson, and Squires met several times to discuss the sales and profits of the McCain Mall store. As stated previously, sales and profits continued to decline during this period. In August 1999, Dillard's [*1058] terminated Hartley, at age sixty-four, and replaced him with a thirty-two-year-old manager. Hartley then brought this action against Dillard's.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
310 F.3d 1054 *; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23727 **; 91 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1217; 83 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41,305; 59 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1217
Dorman Hartley, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Dillard's, Inc., Defendant - Appellant.
Subsequent History: [**1] Rehearing En Banc Denied December 20, 2002, Reported at: 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26559.
Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
district court, front pay, Mall, backpay, termination, pretext, mixed motives, mitigate, determining factor, damages, expert testimony, matter of law, employment decision, direct evidence, benefits, contends, vacation, sales and profit, store manager, contributions, instructions, argues
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, General Overview, Jury Trials, Jury Instructions, Labor & Employment Law, Age Discrimination, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Burden Shifting, Remedies, Damages, Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Reinstatement, Harmless & Invited Errors, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Abuse of Discretion, Daubert Standard, Scientific Evidence, Standards for Admissibility, Types of Evidence, Helpfulness, Clearly Erroneous Review, Contracts Law, Avoidable Consequences, Business & Corporate Compliance, Industry Practices, Unfair Business Practices, Discrimination, Disability & Unemployment Insurance, Disability Benefits, Backpay & Frontpay, Monetary Damages, Compelled Employment, Frontpay, Workers' Compensation & SSDI, Administrative Proceedings, Awards