Age discrimination in employment act of 1967 2 et seq

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: dence that the test was more difficult than the actual job. Women who were not hired because they were unable to complete the WTS suffered losses as a consequence, and Dial did not overcome the presumption in favor of awarding back pay in respect to these claimants. Dial also claims the district court erred by refusing to use its employee tenure data in calculating the amount of back pay because the plant's high turnover rate suggests the claimants would not have been employed for the entire back pay period. The district court applied the well established rule for calculating back pay — the 266 difference between the amount the claimant would have earned absent the discrimination and the amount of wages actually earned during the relevant period. See Hartley v. Dillard's, Inc., 310 F.3d 1054, 1062 (8th Cir. 2002). This was consistent with Title VII's dual purposes of compensating victims and deterring future discrimination, as well as the district court's obligation to grant "the most complete relief possible." King, 849 F.2d at 1144. Dial also challenges the award of lost medical premiums, arguing the claimants should have been required to prove they incurred medical expenses. Our court has not decided whether out of pocket expenses are required before health care benefits can be awarded, see Tolan v. Levi Strauss & Co., 867 F.2d 467, 470 (8th Cir. 1989), and other circuits are divided on the issue. In the view of the Fourth Circuit, Congress intended fringe benefits to be part of the monetary award compensating claimants for the discrimination they suffered. See Fariss v. Lynchberg Foundry, 769 F.2d 958, -11965-66 (4th Cir. 1985) (awarding medical benefits to widow of age discrimination victim without requiring proof of out of pocket medical insurance costs); see also Blackwell v. Sun Elec. Co., 696 F.2d 1176, 1185-86 (6th Cir. 1983) (granting the amount of health care premiums to claimant as part of recovery); but see Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502,1517 (9th Cir. 1986) (reimbursing only out of pocket expenses incurred to obtain health care). Health care benefits are an important element of an employee's overall employment package, and Dial does not...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online