Filed: Oct. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 30, 2020
Summary: Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 29, 2020 No. 20-60207 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Sheaneter J. Bogan, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus MTD Consumer Group, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:14-CV-225 Before Jones, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Sheaneter
Summary: Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 29, 2020 No. 20-60207 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Sheaneter J. Bogan, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus MTD Consumer Group, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:14-CV-225 Before Jones, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Sheaneter B..
More
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 29, 2020
No. 20-60207
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Sheaneter J. Bogan,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
MTD Consumer Group, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:14-CV-225
Before Jones, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Sheaneter Bogan sued her former employer, MTD Consumer Group,
alleging she was terminated because of her race and sex in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq. A jury found
in her favor but awarded her only $1 in nominal damages, and after the
district court denied her requests for reinstatement and front pay, she
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
No. 20-60207
appealed. We affirmed the denial of front pay but remanded for
reconsideration on reinstatement because we concluded that two of the
reasons noted by the district court for denying reinstatement were invalid.
We instructed the district court to eliminate those reasons from its analysis
and to reconsider the reinstatement claim accordingly.
On remand, the district court followed our instructions, reconsidered
the permissible factors, and came to the same conclusion. Bogan appealed
again. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
reinstatement based on the two considerations we found permissible in the
first appeal. Nor did it abuse its discretion by denying Bogan’s request for
another evidentiary hearing and additional discovery. Accordingly, we
affirm.
I.
The facts of this dispute have already been detailed in our previous
opinion in this case. See Bogan v. MTD Consumer Grp., Inc., 919 F.3d 332,
335 (5th Cir. 2019). Suffice it to say that Bogan worked at MTD Consumer
Group for nearly 20 years, pursued a degree in social work while working
there, had disputes with her employer about her class and work schedules,
and was eventually fired.
Id.
A jury found that MTD “discriminated against [Bogan] on the basis
of her race and/or gender” but awarded her only nominal damages of $1.
Id.
Bogan requested front pay and reinstatement. Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1)
(Title VII provides relief for victims of unlawful employment discrimination,
and the district court has discretion to order reinstatement “or any other
equitable relief [it] deems appropriate.”). The district court denied her
request for front pay because Bogan failed to mitigate her damages. Bogan v.
MTD Consumer Grp., Inc.,
2017 WL 4158623, at *6 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 18,
2017). It also denied her request for reinstatement based on four
2
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
No. 20-60207
considerations: (1) the low feasibility of returning Bogan to her previous
position; (2) Bogan’s intent to change careers to social work; (3) MTD’s
argument that it would have fired Bogan even in the absence of any alleged
discrimination; and (4) sufficient discord between Bogan and MTD made
reinstatement inappropriate. Id. at *5–6.
We affirmed the denial of front pay, finding no clear error in the
district court’s conclusion that Bogan did not mitigate her damages because
she failed to “use reasonable diligence to obtain ‘substantially equivalent
employment.’”
Bogan, 919 F.3d at 336. However, we found that the district
court should not have considered two of the four factors it used to make its
reinstatement determination.
Id. at 339. While the first two factors
“counsel[ed] against reinstatement,” as “Bogan’s position no longer
‘exist[ed] as it did during her employment’” and she “intended to change
careers to social work,” the final two did not.
Id. at 337–38. The jury rejected
MTD’s defense that it would have fired Bogan even without any alleged
discrimination, making the third factor impermissible.
Id. at 337. The district
court also should not have relied on discord between the parties because it
neither cited any “specific instances” nor found that the acrimony was so
great as to “irreparably damage[]” the relationship.
Id. at 339 (citing Walther
v. Lone Star Gas Co.,
952 F.2d 119, 127 (5th Cir. 1992)).
We then vacated the denial of reinstatement and remanded to the
district court “for further proceedings without suggesting how [it] should
exercise its discretion based on the two factors that remain or other
permissible considerations that [it] may find relevant.” Bogan, 919 F.3d at
340.
The district court followed our instructions on remand. Bogan v.
MTD Consumer Grp., 2020 WL 957414, at *1–4 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 27, 2020).
It acknowledged that the jury rejected MTD’s defense that it would have
3
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
No. 20-60207
terminated Bogan even without any discrimination and found that this factor
“weighs in favor of reinstatement.” Id. at *3. It also found no “specific
instances of discord” to support the denial of reinstatement.”
Id.
Nevertheless, these considerations alone did not “support an
alternate result, particularly in light of the other factors[,] which weigh
heavily against reinstatement.”
Id. After once again denying Bogan’s
request for reinstatement, the district court reaffirmed its denial of front pay
because Bogan failed to mitigate damages, noting that front pay is not
“automatic” even when reinstatement is denied.
Id. at *3–4. It “relied
solely on the evidence presented at trial and heard through post-trial
motions” and denied Bogan’s requests for another evidentiary hearing and
additional discovery because they were “unnecessary.”
Id. at *4.
Bogan appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion
by denying reinstatement based on the first two factors and by refusing to
hold another evidentiary hearing or to allow additional discovery.
II.
The exercise of a district court’s equitable power to award front pay
or reinstatement is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Deloach v. Delchamps,
Inc., 897 F.2d 815, 822 (5th Cir. 1990). Both the decision whether to reopen
the record and the denial of an evidentiary hearing are also subject to review
for abuse of discretion. See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer,
462 U.S.
523, 551 (1983) (“On remand, the decision whether to reopen the record
should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”); Brown v. Oil States
Skagit Smatco,
664 F.3d 71, 80 (5th Cir. 2011) (“We review the district
court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.”).
4
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
No. 20-60207
A.
Reinstatement is the preferred equitable remedy under Title VII.
Hansard v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., Inc., 865 F.2d 1461, 1469 (5th Cir.
1989). This court considers several factors when determining whether to
award or deny reinstatement. See Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co.,
499 F.3d
474, 489 (5th Cir. 2007) (in reviewing a district court’s decision to award or
deny reinstatement, we consider a number of factors, such as “whether
positions now exist comparable to the plaintiff’s former position,” “whether
reinstatement would require an employer to displace an existing employee,”
“whether the plaintiff has changed careers,” and “whether animosity exists
between the plaintiff and [the] former employer”). “[E]xcept under
extraordinary circumstances . . . innocent incumbents may not be displaced.”
Id.
Courts generally award front pay if reinstatement is not appropriate or
possible, but denying one does not necessarily result in awarding the other.
Id.; Hadley v. VAM P T S,
44 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Front pay is an
equitable remedy that can be employed when reinstatement is not feasible.”);
Hansard, 865 F.2d at 1469–70 (instructing that if the district court “finds on
remand that [Plaintiff] cannot be reinstated, the court must consider his
failure to mitigate his damages in determining the extent to which, if at all,
front pay is appropriate”) (emphasis added). In fact, this court has left open
the possibility of denying both. In Hadley v. VAM P T S, we remanded to the
district court for a reconsideration of its denial of front pay even though the
district court also found reinstatement not feasible, leaving open the
possibility that it would award
neither. 44 F.3d at 374, 376–77 (remanding
for reconsideration of front pay determination “[w]ithout expressing any
opinion on how the court’s discretion should be exercised”). More recently,
we affirmed a district court’s reduction of a successful plaintiff’s jury award,
its award of only $1 in nominal damages, and its denial of both front pay and
5
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
No. 20-60207
reinstatement. Schaeffer v. Warren Cty., Miss., 744 F. App’x 871 (5th Cir.
2018) (per curiam), aff’g, 2017 WL 5709640, at *1–7 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 27,
2017). It may be “unusual,” as we noted in Bogan’s first appeal, to deny both
front pay and reinstatement, as well as “meaningful retrospective” relief,
after a finding of discrimination, but it is not unheard of.
Bogan, 919 F.3d at
336. 1
On appeal, Bogan contends that neither of the first two considerations
support the district court’s denial of reinstatement. She claims that the
“many changes” to her former position are not significant enough and that
she did not successfully change careers to social work. Both claims are
unavailing.
We have already found that the district court properly determined
that these two factors weigh against reinstatement. Id. at 337. Furthermore,
as the district court noted, the record makes clear that these factors “weigh
heavily against reinstatement.” Bogan,
2020 WL 957414, at *3. The position
Bogan held no longer exists as it did when she worked at MTD, there have
been substantial updates to the machine and process she worked on, and
there is no room in MTD’s relevant departmental budget for additional
employees. Reinstating Bogan would thus require displacing an innocent
employee, which we disfavor except under “extraordinary circumstances.”
Palasota, 499 F.3d at 489.
The district court also relied on ample evidence confirming, as we did
in the first appeal, that Bogan’s intent to change careers to social work
counsels against reinstatement. Though she had not yet found full-time
1
Other circuits have also affirmed denials of both front pay and reinstatement
under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Olivares v. Brentwood Indus., 822 F.3d 426, 430 (8th
Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of both front pay and reinstatement when only nominal
damages were awarded and no comparable positions were available).
6
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
No. 20-60207
employment in social work, she demonstrated a clear pursuit of this new path
by, among others, obtaining her social work degree and applying for multiple
positions in the field.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying both
reinstatement and front pay here. See Schaeffer, 744 F. App’x at 871; Hadley,
44 F.3d at 376–77.
B.
“The mandate rule requires a district court on remand to effect our
mandate and to do nothing else.” Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL, Inc.,
500 F.3d 444, 453 (5th Cir. 2007). We remanded to the district court “for
further proceedings without suggesting how [it] should exercise its discretion
based on the two factors that remain or other permissible considerations that
[it] may find relevant.”
Bogan, 919 F.3d at 340. Our only instruction was to
reconsider its reinstatement determination “with two fewer factors on the
‘no reinstatement’ side of the scale.”
Id.
The district court did exactly that. Bogan insists that the district court
should have allowed for additional discovery or held another evidentiary
hearing at which she could present evidence of her willingness to accept a
lower-paying role at MTD. She reminds us that a district court “may not
disregard the explicit directives of [the appellate] court.” In re Abbott,
956 F.3d 696, 710 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Matthews,
312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002)).
But we did not instruct the district court to reopen discovery or hold
additional evidentiary hearings. In fact, we were silent on the matter and
declined to suggest how the district court should proceed. The district court
did as we instructed and explained why the first two factors were sufficient
to deny Bogan’s reinstatement, even without the remaining factors. Bogan,
2020 WL 957414, at *2–3. Far from abusing its discretion or disregarding
7
Case: 20-60207 Document: 00515620123 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/29/2020
No. 20-60207
our directive, the district court followed our instructions and acted within its
discretion to decline to reopen the record or hold another evidentiary
hearing.
***
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
8
