The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that plaintiffs seeking emotional distress damages under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need not mitigate those damages. The decision upheld a $300,000 jury award to a former SkyWest Airlines employee who alleged workplace harassment.
No statutory duty to mitigate emotional harm
The court rejected SkyWest’s argument that the plaintiff should have taken steps to reduce her emotional distress, such as seeking therapy or medication. Title VII requires plaintiffs to mitigate back pay losses by making “reasonable diligence” to earn comparable wages, but the statute does not impose the same obligation for emotional distress claims, the panel wrote.
The opinion stated no legal basis exists in Title VII for requiring mitigation of emotional harm. Most federal courts have reached the same conclusion, the 5th Circuit noted, aligning its ruling with precedent from other circuits.
The airline argued the plaintiff’s failure to seek treatment should have limited her recovery. The court found no support for that position. The jury verdict, which included compensatory and punitive damages, remained intact.
Jury found SkyWest acted with reckless indifference
The case, EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., involved allegations that a co-worker harassed the plaintiff despite completing company-mandated harassment prevention training. SkyWest claimed no direct evidence proved the co-worker finished the training, but the 5th Circuit ruled testimony from an HR employee—who confirmed all employees received it—was enough for a jury to infer compliance.
The court also upheld the jury’s finding that SkyWest’s internal investigation was inadequate. The panel called the company’s efforts a “feeble attempt to uncover the truth,” concluding a reasonable jury could determine SkyWest failed to make good-faith efforts under Title VII. That finding supported the punitive damages award.
Related: The Myth of the Natural Interviewee
The jury initially awarded over $2 million, later reduced to comply with Title VII’s cap. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission described it as the largest verdict ever obtained in the Northern District of Texas.
SkyWest did not respond when asked for comment.
Employment lawyers have said detailed internal investigations, including thorough documentation, can help companies avoid such outcomes. The ruling may lead HR departments to review their procedures, though it does not create new legal requirements beyond existing Title VII standards.
The case highlights how juries examine not only employee conduct but also how companies handle harassment claims. While the 5th Circuit’s decision follows established law, it confirms emotional distress damages in Title VII cases do not depend on a plaintiff’s efforts to ease their suffering.
Plaintiffs may now recover full emotional distress damages without proving they tried to mitigate harm. Other circuits have not signaled plans to diverge from this approach, and the 5th Circuit’s reasoning matches the prevailing view among federal courts.
Employers should note that workplace disputes often hinge on documentation and response protocols.
Leave a Reply