Under Washington State law, what is the failure-to-mitigate-damages affirmative defense and how is it typically applied in Washington State employment-discrimination cases? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
MITIGATING DAMAGES
In Washington State, plaintiffs have “a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate means to avoid or reduce damages.” 6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.83 (7th ed.).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
An affirmative defense is a defendant’s assertion of facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff’s claim, even if all allegations in the complaint are true. Blacks Law Dictionary, p. 451, “defense (affirmative defense)” (Rev 8th Ed. 2004); Bernsen v. Big Bend Elec. Co-op., Inc., 68 Wn.App. 427, 433, 842 P.2d 1047 (1993); CR 8(c).
Defendant-employers usually assert the affirmative defense of “failure to mitigate damages” against plaintiff-employees during litigation of employment-discrimination claims. This particular defense is most often asserted when the plaintiff-employee challenges as discriminatory a discrete employment decision, such as a termination or a failure to hire. 6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.83 (7th ed.).
FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
In an employment-discrimination suit, the burden of proving a failure to mitigate damages is on the employer, and the employer must show the following to satisfy its burden:
1. There were openings in comparable positions available for plaintiff elsewhere after defendant terminated or refused to hire plaintiff;
2. The plaintiff failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking those openings;
3. The amount by which damages would have been reduced if the plaintiff had used reasonable care and diligence in seeking those openings.
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.83 (6th ed.).
Juries are typically instructed that they should take into account the characteristics of the plaintiff and the job market in evaluating the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate damages. Id. Importantly, the plaintiff’s failure to make an ongoing, concerted effort to find comparable employment does not preclude a back pay award. Henningsen v. Worldcom, Inc., 9 P.3d 948, 102 Wn.App. 828 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2000).
AN EXAMPLE: HENNINGSEN v. WORLDCOM, INC.
For example, in Henningsen v. Worldcom, Inc., a plaintiff-employee (Henningsen) brought a sex discrimination lawsuit against her defendant-employer (Worldcom), and the trial court (bench trial) entered judgment in Henningsen’s favor; the award included full back pay. Id.
Worldcom then appealed alleging, inter alia, the trial court erred, because Henningsen failed to mitigate her damages. Id. Worldcom claimed that “there was evidence that she traveled extensively, had a baby, married the baby’s father, and then proceeded to assist him in the management of his own business after she left Worldcom.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
The Court found that there was “evidence that Henningsen failed to make an ongoing, concerted effort to find comparable employment” and that the trial court even “expressed some concerns about [Henningsen’s] underemployment[.]” Id. (first alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted). But the Court also found that there was “evidence that she worked on a limited basis for her husband’s business and tried to start a home business.” Id.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that “Worldcom presented no evidence that employment comparable to her position at Worldcom was in fact available” and, therefore, ruled that “substantial evidence support[ed] the trial court’s finding that Worldcom did not prove that Henningsen failed to mitigate her back pay damages.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Thus, in the case of Henningsen v. Worldcom, the issue of mitigation of damages was determined in favor of the employee as a result of the employer’s failure to satisfy the first element of the test—evidence that there were openings in comparable positions available for plaintiff elsewhere after defendant terminated (or refused to hire) plaintiff.
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.