United States Third Circuit

In an employment discrimination action, district court's judgment on liability is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in giving jury instructions, as it met its responsibility to provide the jury with a clear articulation of the relevant law. The judgment is vacated and remanded for a new trial on damages where: 1) the court improperly admitted testimony that required specialized or technical expertise, which affected the court's judgment with regard to mitigation and the amount of damages; and 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in the award of back pay and frontpay, and did not err in its calculation of compensatory damages.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/17/2008
• Decided 04/23/2009
• Published 04/23/2009

Judges

• Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FUENTES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David R. Fine (Argued), Jacqueline E. Bedard, Amy L. Groff, K & L Gates, Harrisburg, PA, Attorneys for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Stephen D. Rhoades (Argued), Law Offices of Edward P. McNelis, Hazelton, PA, Theodore R. Laputka, Jr., Theodore R. Laputka & Associates, Hazleton, PA, Attorneys for Appellee.