Cash Distributing Company, Inc. v. James Neely


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-CA-01124-COA
Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-01124-SCT ; 2004-CT-01124-SCT ; 2004-CA-01124-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-03-2006
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part; Additur; Revs'd & Rem'd in Part

Additional Case Information: Topic: Age discrimination - Age-neutral reasons for termination - Setoff - Additur - Interest
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.J., AND ISHEE, J.
Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J.
Dissent Joined By : CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-27-2004
Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr.
Disposition: JURY AWARDED PLAINTIFF $120,000 IN BACK PAY.
Case Number: 2000-0153-CV1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: CASH DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC.




KATHERINE S. KERBY



 

Appellee: JAMES NEELY RODNEY A. RAY, J. DOUGLAS FORD  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Age discrimination - Age-neutral reasons for termination - Setoff - Additur - Interest

Summary of the Facts: James Neely sued Cash Distributing Company on a federal age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and was awarded $120,000 by a jury. Cash appeals, and Neely cross-appeals the decision.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Age-neutral reasons for termination At trial, Cash argued that Neely’s employment was terminated because he was a poor employee who neglected to follow direct instructions given by his superior. Among other things, Cash argued that Neely failed to perform required evaluations, failed to prepare weekly reports, failed to do daily sales calls, and refused to follow orders given to him by Cash’s CEO. On appeal, Cash argues that the judgment in this case should be reversed because Neely failed to refute all these age-neutral reasons for his termination. Neely produced substantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred that Danny Cash wanted to fire Neely due to Neely’s age. Although Neely did not rebut each of Cash’s offered non-discriminatory reasons by proving that he did not do them, he did present evidence that other younger employees, guilty of the same infractions, received far different treatment. This unequal treatment goes directly to the credibility of Cash’s non-discriminatory reasons. The unequal treatment combined with other evidence presented by Neely, such as his success at his job and impeachment of Cash’s witnesses, was sufficient for the jury to find that Cash’s non-discriminatory reasons were mere pretextual. Issue 2: Setoff Cash argues that it should be entitled to a setoff of $208,896.66 against Neely’s judgment because of the actual retirement benefits received by Neely after his termination. The present value of a plaintiff’s interest in a pension plan is recoverable as an element of damages under the ADEA. Neely was clearly entitled to receive the benefit of his pension plan. Neely did not request, and the jury did not award, any damages for lost pension. The $120,000 awarded to Neely was solely for back pay. Since Neely is entitled to receive the value of his pension plan as of termination ($208,896.66) as well as back pay, there is no justification for deducting the previously-paid pension amount from the jury award. Issue 3: Additur Neely, as the party seeking an additur, bears the burden of proving that an additur is required. Neely argues that the jury’s award was against the overwhelming weight of the uncontradicted evidence of his damages, because Cash admitted in its court filings that he was entitled to $178,754 in back pay if he won at trial and Neely offered proof of lost retirement and insurance benefits that entitles him to an additional $54,000 in damages, for a total additur of $112,754. An additur of $58,754 is awarded to Neely. This number reflects the difference between the actual amount awarded by the jury and the amount conceded as proper back pay by Cash itself in its trial brief. The court below, on remand, is ordered to grant additional additur in any amount necessary to make Neely whole, including lost insurance and vacation benefits, as long as that amount is supported by the evidence presented in the case. Issue 4: Interest The court gave no explanation in its order for the denial of additur, postjudgment interest, prejudgment interest, front pay, or attorney’s fees (all of which are available remedies in order to make an ADEA plaintiff whole). Neely argues that the court erred in denying him front pay, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and postjudgment interest. Due to the lack of information in the court’s order explaining its decision, these issues are reversed and remanded for further findings concerning its reasoning for denying all these remedies.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court