00-763 Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Listen to this article

“In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress determined that victims of employment discrimination were entitled to additional remedies. Congress expressly found that ‘additional remedies under Federal law are needed to deter unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace,’ without giving any indication that it wished to curtail previously available remedies. See Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071, sec. 2. Congress therefore made clear through the plain language of the statute that the remedies newly authorized under sec. 1981a were in addition to the relief authorized by sec. 706(g). Section 1981a(a)(1) provides that, in intentional discrimination cases brought under Title VII, ‘the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subjection (b) of [sec. 1981a], in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent.’ (Emphasis added.) And sec. 1981a(b)(2) states that ‘[c]ompensatory damages awarded under [sec. 1981a] shall not include backpay, interest on backpay, or any other type of relief authorized under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” According to these statutory provisions, if front pay was a type of relief authorized under sec. 706(g), it is excluded from the meaning of compensatory damages under sec. 1981a.”

Reversed and remanded.

Local Effect:

The decision is consistent with both Wisconsin and Seventh Circuit law: Salveson v. Douglas County, 2000 WI App 80, 234 Wis.2d 413, 610 N.W.2d 184; Pals v. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 499-500 (7th Cir.2000).

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 213 F.3d 933.