Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00320-SLR Document 84 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
I\/IELVERT WASHINGTON, JR., )
Plaintiff, i
v. i Civ. No. 04-320-SLR
AUTOZONERS, INC., ;
Defendant. i
O R D E R
At Wilmington this 11“‘ day of February, 2008, having conferred with counsel
representing the parties to the above captioned case;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Evidence relating to racial discrimination. Although the @@ and
preliminary instructions shall be revised to take out the reference to racial
discrimination, the court declines to change its evidentiary rulings on defendant’s
motion Q , as the record demonstrates that plaintiffs claims based upon a hostile
work environment and constructive discharge, as well as retaliation, are grounded upon
the conduct that took place prior to May 2002 and, therefore, that such evidence is
relevant}
‘The case at bar is distinguishable from Cuffee v. Dover Vlhpes Co., 334 F.
Supp. 2d 565, 575 (D. Del. 2004), where plaintiff Cuffee never complained about
discrimination. It is evident that, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff did not check the
box for "race" on the form complaint, the claims relate back to the discriminatory
conduct that took place prior to May 2002. (D.l. 63, ex. E) The court declines to view
this case in a vacuum.

Case 1:04-cv-00320-SLR Document 84 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 2 of 2
2. Damages. Back pay is an equitable remedy, therefore, evidence relating to
such will be heard by the court, not the jury. Sy Spencer v. Wal—Mart Stores, Inc., 469
F.3d 311, 315 (3d Cir. 2006). Back pay should be the difference between actual wages
and the wages the plaintiff would have earned absent discrimination. Durham Life Ins.
Co. v. Evans, 166 F.3d 139, 156 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing to Gumby v. Pennsylvania Elec.
@, 840 F.2d 1108, 1119 (3d Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff complained in the administrative
proceedings that he was kept from obtaining more hours, a full-time position, or a
higher salary. (D.I. 63, ex. E) Dr. Black’s report contains information related to such
claims and, therefore, his testimony is relevant to the court’s decision on back pay. Dr.
Black’s testimony is not relevant to the issue of compensatory damages and, therefore,
his testimony will not be presented to the jury.

2

Case 1:04-cv-00320-SLR

Document 84

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00320-SLR

Document 84

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 2 of 2