Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3489 Kramer v. Board of Education of the School District of the Menomonie Area

By: dmc-admin//October 1, 2001//

00-3489 Kramer v. Board of Education of the School District of the Menomonie Area

By: dmc-admin//October 1, 2001//

Listen to this article

“At issue is whether Kramer’s damages must be reduced by the amount of financial benefit he received by securing new, more lucrative employment during the contract period. Kramer argues that the practical effect of this reduction, which ultimately resulted in the payment of zero damages, is to penalize him for ‘over mitigating’ his damages and reward his employer for egregious conduct. We reject his argument and affirm. …

“It is well established that a party is not entitled to be placed in a better position because of a breach than he or she would have if the contract had been performed.[Citation].

“Accordingly, courts have reduced damage awards to employees by the amount of wages earned at subsequent employment during the contract period, as well as by unemployment compensation payments. …

“If we apply the rule of mitigation to Kramer’s incidental and consequential damage claims, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that Kramer’s damages must be reduced to the extent he has mitigated his damages by earning other income during the contract period. We are unpersuaded by the proposition that mitigation of one type of damage should be used to reduce only that same type of damage (e.g., wages lost can be reduced only by wages earned). …

“Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the consequential and incidental damage award should be reduced by Kramer’s income during the contract period. Because it is undisputed that the jury’s $16,000 damage award, combined with the income Kramer would have received had he continued with the Memoninee District, did not exceed his actual income during the two-year contract period, Kramer was not entitled to any damages. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it granted judgment to the district notwithstanding the verdict.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Eau Claire County, Stark, J., Cane, C.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: J. Drew Ryberg, Eau Claire; Michael J. Happe, Eau Claire

For Respondent: Joel L. Aberg, Eau Claire

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests