Pollard v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
Headline: Ruling holds front pay awards are not counted as compensatory damages under the 1991 Civil Rights Act, allowing employees suing employers to receive front pay in addition to capped compensatory damages.
Holding: In this case, front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and therefore is excluded from the statute’s damages cap.
- Allows workers to receive front pay in addition to capped compensatory damages.
- Makes employers potentially liable for postjudgment lost wages beyond the statutory cap.
- Reverses the Sixth Circuit and sends the case back for further proceedings.
Summary
Background
Sharon Pollard, a former DuPont employee, sued after coworkers sexually harassed her and supervisors failed to stop it. The District Court found the harassment caused medical leave and eventual dismissal and awarded backpay, attorney’s fees, and $300,000 in compensatory damages—the statutory cap for a large employer. Pollard argued that front pay should not count toward that cap, and courts of appeals disagreed on the question, prompting review by the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The central question was whether front pay—money paid for lost wages between judgment and reinstatement or instead of reinstatement—is an element of “compensatory damages” subject to the 1991 Act’s cap. The Court examined the statute and earlier remedies under §706(g) of Title VII and the related NLRA practice. It noted §1981a allows compensatory damages “in addition to” §706(g) relief and that §1981a(b)(2) excludes backpay and other §706(g) remedies from compensatory damages. Concluding that front pay falls within the traditional §706(g) remedies, the Court held front pay is not subject to §1981a’s damages cap, reversed the Sixth Circuit, and remanded for further proceedings; Justice O’Connor took no part.
Real world impact
The decision means employees can obtain front pay awards separate from the capped compensatory damages the 1991 Act limits, and employers may face additional postjudgment pay obligations. The Court did not decide when front pay is appropriate in any particular case and left those determinations for the lower courts on remand.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?