The importance of economic damage experts in employment cases

In far too many cases, defense attorneys underestimate the importance of economic damage experts in employment discrimination cases. Here is an example posted on Ross' Employment Law Blog, where the defense's failure to show that there was comparable work available for the plaintiff cost them a cool $1 million.

Background:

Bruce Hope, a gay man, won a jury verdict for $914,104 in economic damages plus $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. On November 30 the California Court of Appeal affirmed. Hope v. California Youth Authority (California Ct App 11/30/2005).

Hope worked as a cook in one of California's youth correctional facilities. He claimed that he was harassed - because he was gay - over a period of about five years. The jury agreed. The employer appealed, arguing that the verdict was not supported by the evidence.

The economic damage award:

Economic damages - $914,104.

The jury implicitly found that Hope would have worked for the state until retirement age but for the harassment.

Although Hope was HIV positive, he had no obligation to prove that he had a normal life expectancy. He didn't have AIDS, and was responding well to medication.

Although the employer argued that Hope did not prove he could never work again, it was the employer's burden to prove what he would have earned.

The court's opinion:

At trial, there were “dueling” experts testifying about whether Hope could work
again. Hope himself made clear that he wanted to go back to work. But CYA offered no evidence as to the amount that Hope might have earned through reasonable effort.

Nor did CYA make any showing about the availability of comparable or substantially similar
employment. For these reasons, CYA’s mitigation argument fails.