IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
COMPLETE CARE MEDICAL CENTER, No. 75908
A NEVADA BUSINESS ENTITY,
Appellant, FILE
vs.
AMELIA BECKSTEAD, AN APR 09 20V
INDIVIDUAL; AND LISA EIMMETH A. BROWN
f.:.LERK St:PMIAE COURT
DERRWALDT, AN INDIVIDUAL, •
Res ondents. DEPUTYCGIER
ORDER VACATING IN PART AND REMANDING
This is an appeal from a final judgment following a three-day
bench trial and a hearing on a post-judgment motion in an employment
discrimination case, after which the district court awarded respondents
Amelia Beckstead and Lisa Derrwaldt eight years of back pay ($331,425.00
and $381,106.00, respectively) in damages. Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County; Nancy L. Allf, Judge. These awards were nearly double the
amounts that respondents calculated and claimed pretrial.
Though appellant, Complete Care Medical Center, had raised
respondents duty to mitigate their damages as an affirmative defense in its
answer, and again at trial, the district court did not address mitigation in
its oral ruling or its written order. A panel of this court originally issued an
order resolving this matter and affirming the substantial back pay awards.
Complete Care Med. Ctr. v. Beckstead, Docket No. 75908, 2020 WL 3603881,
466 P.3d 538 (Nev. July 1, 2020). We granted Complete Care's petition for
en banc reconsideration of that decision solely as to the mitigation of
damages issue. NRAP 40A(f).
The limited grant of en bane reconsideration leaves undisturbed
the district court's finding of unlawful employment discrimination, which
./1-io?88
the panel affirmed. However, the record contains substantial evidence
supporting Complete Care's claim that, after the births of their children,
respondents voluntarily withdrew from the workforce despite one of them
finding substantially similar work, which she then left to stay home with
her child. If credited, this evidence—which includes the respondents'
testimony at trial—supports deductions from, or tolling of, any back pay
awards for the time periods that each voluntarily chose to stay home. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1) (Interim earnings or amounts earnable with
reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall
operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable."); Beales v. Hillhaven,
Inc., 108 Nev. 96, 101,
825 P.2d 212, 215 (1992) (holding that an employee's
duty to mitigate damages includes the "duty to seek and maintain
subsequent ernploymene).
"Many courts have wrestled with the question what
constitute[d] a voluntary removal from the labor rnarket" under similar
factual circumstances. Donald T. Kramer, Annotation, Period of Time
Covered by Back Pay Award Under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C.A. sC 2000e et seq., 137 A.L.R. Fed. 1 § 23(a) (1997). However, our
review of any such context is constrained by the district court's awards of
eight years of back pay without supporting analysis or findings regarding
respondents mitigation efforts. Accordingly, while the back pay awards
would ordinarily be subject to a deferential abuse of discretion standard,
Sangster v. United Air Lines, Inc.,
633 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980), this
manifestly deficient order amounts to legal error. Davis v. Ewalefo,
131
Nev. 445, 450,
352 P.3d 1139, 1142 (2015) (reversing an award of custody
based on a lack of supporting reasoning by the district court and noting that
"[d]eference is not owed to legal error or to findings so conclusory they mask
2
legal erroe) (citations omitted). We therefore vacate the district court's
back pay awards and remand for further proceedings to address mitigation
and recalculate damages as appropriate.
It is so ORDERED.
, C.J.
Parraguirre
•
Cadish
Pickering
Ade. J.
Herndon
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Stephen E. Haberfeld, Settlement Judge
Law Office of Daniel Marks
Cohen Johnson Parker Edwards
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
Oh 19417A .410D
SILVER, J., with whom STIGLICH, J. agrees, dissenting:
Complete Care specifically challenges the district court's
calculations of the plaintiffs respective back pay awards. However, at the
conclusion of the bench trial, the district court orally pronounced those
amounts on the record after referencing Beckstead's trial brief, which
Complete Care failed to include in the record before this court. "It is the
responsibility of appellant to make an adequate appellate record." Carson
Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 97 Nev. 474, 476,
635 P.2d 276,
277 (1981); see also Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sy.s. of Nev.,
123 Nev. 598,
603,
172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007) ([T]his court has made it clear that
appellants are responsible for making an adequate appellate record.").
"When an appellant fails to include necessary documentation in the record,
[this court] necessarily presume[s] that the missing portion supports the
district court's decision." Cuzze, 123 Nev. at 603, 172 P.3d at 135.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent because this court presumes
that the missing trial brief supports the district court's award of back pay
in this case. Cf. Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224 F.3d 1014, 1020
(9th Cir. 2000) (noting that "there is a presumption in favor of back pay
awards"). On that basis, I reject Complete Care's related arguments and
would affirm the district court's judgment.
J.
Silver
I concur:
J.
Stiglich
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
op l047A
