PJC Business

D AMAGES

PJC 115.30

COMMENT When to use. PJC 115.30 should be predicated on a “Yes” answer to PJC 107.6. Source of question and instruction. PJC 115.30 is based on Tex. Lab. Code §§21.258, 21.2585. See also Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home & Service Agency , 847 S.W.2d 227, 228 (Tex. 1993) (Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (now Texas Labor Code chapter 21) specifically allows for compensatory relief). Equitable relief. In addition to actual and exemplary damages allowed under Tex. Lab. Code §21.2585 and attorney’s fees under Tex. Lab. Code §21.259, on a finding that an employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices, the trial court may order an injunction or additional equitable relief under Tex. Lab. Code §21.258. See also Caballero v. Central Power & Light Co. , 858 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tex. 1993) (equitable relief under TCHRA (now Texas Labor Code chapter 21) is to be deter mined by judge). Attorney’s fees. See PJC 115.60. Front pay. “Front pay is an equitable remedy intended to compensate a plaintiff for future lost wages and benefits.” Texas Youth Commission v. Koustoubardis , 378 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, pet. dism’d). Because front pay is an equi table remedy and not an element of compensatory damages, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that “front pay” is not a future pecuniary loss subject to the statutory cap on damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, the federal counterpart to Texas Labor Code section 21.2585. Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. , 532 U.S. 843, 846–48 (2001). To recover front pay, the plaintiff must show that reinstatement is not feasible. Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Davis , 979 S.W.2d 30, 45 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied). The trial court must decide whether it is equitable for the plaintiff to recover front pay and may submit a question to the jury to determine the amount. Dell, Inc. v. Wise , 424 S.W.3d 100, 116–17 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2013, no pet.); Davis , 979 S.W.2d at 45. If the trial court decides to submit front pay to the jury, economic losses in the form of front pay should be excluded from the definition of future compensatory damages. After-acquired evidence of employee misconduct. If the employer has pleaded the discovery of evidence of employee misconduct acquired only after the employee’s employment was terminated, see PJC 107.8 for the applicable instruction. Elements of damages submitted separately. The Committee generally recom mends that multiple elements of damages be separately submitted to the jury. Harris County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 233–34 (Tex. 2002) (broad-form submission of valid and invalid elements of damages may lead to harmful error if there is a proper objec tion raising insufficiency of the evidence to support one or more of the elements sub mitted); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.008(a) (“In an action in which a claimant seeks recovery of damages, the trier of fact shall determine the amount of

487