This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: contest that it would have awarded claimants
health care benefits had they been hired. The district court only required Dial to
compensate the claimants for the amount of health care premiums that would have
been part of their employment package had they not suffered discrimination. No
reimbursement for health care costs incurred by uninsured claimants was awarded.
The court's limited award was reasonable, for "[t]his insurance coverage, not the
proceeds, is the benefit for which the employer must be held liable." Fariss, 769 F.2d
EEOC cross appeals the denial of back pay to Wright-Bradley. EEOC argues
that Dial did not overcome the presumption in favor of awarding back pay to her as
a victim of Title VII violations. See Rath Packing, 787 F.2d at 329. Dial responds that
it should not have to contribute back pay to Wright-Bradley because she was
convicted of a felony before she applied in 2000, a background check would have
revealed her criminal record, and she would have been terminated. EEOC disputes
Dial's factual assertions and argues that McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing
Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995), supports an award of back pay to Wright-Bradley.
In McKennon, the Supreme Court concluded that an employer's belated
discovery of wrongdoing by a dismissed employee should not completely bar an
award of back pay because of the congressional "objective of forcing employers to
consider and examine their motivations, and of penalizing them for employment
-12decisions that spring from discrimination." Id.; see also Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d
1058, 1061-62 (8th Cir. 2004) (applying the after acquired evidence rule to Title VII
cases). The Supreme Court decided that back pay should be awarded, but only "from
the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the new information was discovered" 267 absent findings of "extraordinary equitable circumstances." McKennon, 513 U.S. at
362. The district court distinguished McKennon on the basis that the misconduct there
had occurred during the plaintiff's employment and concluded that back pay would
result in a windfall to Wright-Bradley. Dial argues that this is a mixed motives case
so McKennon does not ap...
View Full Document
- Spring '08