Scott Teutscher v. Riverside Sheriffs Assn

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT TEUTSCHER, an individual, No. 13-56411 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. and 5:06-cv-01208-

RHW-OP

RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

LEGAL DEFENSE TRUST; TANYA

CONRAD, individually and as an Agent of the Riverside Sheriffs Association, Defendants,

v.

WILLIAM NATHANIEL WOODSON, III,

Intervenor-Appellant. SCOTT TEUTSCHER, an individual, No. 13-56659 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:06-cv-01208-

RHW-OP

RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 5, 2016 Pasadena, California

Filed August 26, 2016

Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr., Paul J. Watford, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Friedland Concurrence by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

TEUTSCHER V. WOODSON

SUMMARY *

Labor Law

The panel reversed the district court’s award of front pay and…

Concurrence by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, Jr.

OPINION

This appeal requires us to examine the limits on a district court’s authority to award front pay and reinstatement as equitable remedies for a retaliatory .discharge after a plaintiff has already sought and been awarded by a jury front pay damages to compensate for the same harm. Plaintiff-Appellee Scott Teutscher went to trial against his former employer, Riverside Sheriffs’ Association (“RSA”), on retaliatory discharge claims under both state law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001— 1461 (“ERISA”). A jury awarded him lump-sum damages on his state law claims, and the district court then entered judgment in his favor on his ERISA claim. Even though, at Teutscher’s request, the jury had been instructed to include front pay in its damages award, the district *940 court granted Teutscher additional equitable remedies consisting of reinstatement as well as front pay until reinstatement occurred. RSA appeals these equitable remedies, arguing that they conflict with the jury’s front pay award in violation of the Seventh Amendment and improperly duplicate Teutscher’s recovery from the jury.

Given the way…

concurring in the judgment:

I concur in the judgment of the majority opinion. However, I disagree with the majority’s Seventh Amendment analysis in Part IV of the opinion. I disagree that the district court “should have viewed itself as bound under the Seventh Amendment” because “Teutscher needed to make the same factual showing and to meet the same defenses” in order to obtain both future lost earnings and reinstatement. Maj. Op. at 947. Instead, I would hold that the district court’s equitable remedy was an improper abuse of discretion, because the district court did not give reasons why additional equitable relief was appropriate after the jury had already compensated Teutscher for the monetary harm he suffered.

The district court’s equitable remedy took the form of reinstatement, with front pay until reinstatement could occur. In addition, the jury awarded Teutscher a lump sum for compensatory damages that included future lost earnings. In this case, the majority’s constitutional analysis is based on a conclusion that the factual underpinnings of the jury’s award for future lost earnings is identical to those supporting the district court’s equitable award.

I disagree that…