Summary
holding that employee had duty to mitigate damages following breach of employment contract by accepting offer of reinstatement
Summary of this case from RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of AmericaOpinion
No. 95SC753
June 30, 1997 Petition for Rehearing DENIED. Rehearing Denied September 15, 1997.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Jones, Waters, Bennett, Hessel Cross, L.L.C., Keith Cross, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Holland Hart, Elaine H. Turner, Colorado Springs, Colorado, John M. Husband, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.
Arckey Reha, L.L.C., Thomas J. Arckey, Littleton, Colorado, Jeffrey Menter, Englewood, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association.
Holme Roberts Owen LLP, John R. Webb, Elizabeth M. Flores, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.
In Fair v. Red Lion Inn, 920 P.2d 820 (Colo.App. 1995), we granted certiorari to address a single question: whether as a matter of law, the refusal of an employee to accept her former employer's unconditional offer of reinstatement, after a breach of contract by the employer, constitutes a failure to mitigate damages on the part of the employee. Because we conclude that a discharged employee has a duty to mitigate damages by accepting an unconditional offer of reinstatement in the absence of special circumstances, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Our order directed briefing and oral arguments on the following question: "Did the court of appeals err by ruling that, as a matter of law, the refusal of an employee to accept her former employer's offer of re-employment, after a breach of contract by the employer, constitutes a failure to mitigate damages on the part of the employee?"
The court of appeals upheld the jury verdict finding Red Lion liable for breach of contract. As our order granting certiorari does not address that conclusion, it remains the law of this case and will not be disturbed by our review.
I. A.
In June 1987, the respondent, Red Lion Inn (Red Lion), a hotel operator, hired petitioner, Patricia Fair (Fair), as a server in its Colorado Springs restaurant, Maxi's Dining Room. When hired, Fair signed the "Red Lion Inns Employment Agreement Condition of Employment" (Employment Agreement). Among other matters, the Employment Agreement provided that Fair's employment with Red Lion was at will, and that she could be discharged with or without cause. At the same time, Red Lion gave Fair a copy of its employee manual.
The employee manual included a section entitled "Employee Relations Philosophy." In that section, the following language appears:
The policies, practices and procedures set forth in this Employees' Manual are guidelines for supervision. They are not intended to confer contractual rights of any kind upon any employee or to create contractual obligations of any kind for the Company. The Company may revise, delete or supplement any policy, practice or procedure in this Employees' Manual at any time in its sole discretion.
Also important here, the employee manual set forth certain policies regarding medical leaves of absence: employees were not eligible for a medical leave of absence until after successfully completing a probationary period and working more than three months with Red Lion and, once eligible, an employee was permitted to request a medical leave of absence for a period not to exceed three months. The manual included the following provision:
During a medical leave of absence, every effort will be made to keep a position available for the employee's return. If it is not possible to keep the position open because of business necessity, preference will be given for a similar position of equal to or lesser pay. Preference will be based upon job openings and qualifications.
. . . .
Failure to advise the company of availability to return to work, failure to return to work upon doctor's release or continued absence from work beyond the time approved by the company will be deemed a voluntary termination of employment with Red Lion Inns.
On April 14, 1990, Fair was injured in a non-work related traffic accident. As a result of injuries from the accident, Fair applied for and was granted a medical leave. The term of her approved leave of absence was from May 25, 1990, to June 20, 1990. At the time of her leave of absence, Fair's position of employment with Red Lion was that of coffee break attendant in the room service department. Her duties included lifting, moving, and setting up a heavy banquet table, as well as walking back and forth from the table to the bar several times a day while carrying trays and coffee urns to refill the urns with coffee kept behind the bar. The injury she sustained in the accident made it difficult for Fair to perform her duties. In addition, on or about May 31, Fair learned that she was pregnant.
According to her testimony, Fair attributes the delay between when she was injured and when she applied for medical leave to an initial lack of discomfort and to pressure from management that she continue working despite her pain.
On June 20, 1990, the date her medical leave was to expire, Fair asked Neal Gustafson (Gustafson), the director of Human Resources, if she could bring in her doctor's release on June 22. Gustafson told her that was "not a problem." Fair submitted a partial release dated June 22, 1990, which permitted her to return to work, but only under certain conditions. The partial release limited Fair's work activities to those that did not involve heavy lifting (more than fifty pounds), prolonged standing or sitting, or abnormal postures (bending, kneeling, etc.). When told that the conditions of the partial release were not acceptable, Fair asked to be allowed to submit a full release by June 29, 1990, and she was again told that to do so would not be a problem. Shortly thereafter, Fair submitted a full release. The second release, dated June 27, 1990, stated that Fair was "capable of returning to work with no restrictions applied as of July 2, 1990."
In early July 1990, however, Fair learned that her employment with Red Lion had been terminated. The termination notice dated June 20, 1990, set forth the following explanation for her termination:
Fair argues here, as she did in her successful breach of contract action, that the termination notice was backdated for June 20, 1990, because the decision to terminate her was not made until the month of July.
Patricia's Medical Leave of Absence expired June 20, 1990. Her doctor did not give her a full release until July 2, 1990. The Red Lion is unfortunately unable to hold her position available past the expiration date of June 20, 1990.
On or about July 10, 1990, Fair asked Gustafson whether she was fired or released and he replied that Red Lion could no longer hold the position open.
Believing she was wrongfully discharged, Fair asked her legal counsel, retained due to the accident, to investigate the circumstances of her termination. After requesting and receiving information concerning the termination, Fair's attorney sent Red Lion a letter dated September 17, 1990, stating Fair's position that she had "complied with the Red Lion's policies regarding medical leaves of absence, but that the Red Lion failed to so comply." Citing Fair's "extreme emotional and financial losses as a result of the hotel's actions," her attorney further stated that the purpose of the letter was to "reiterate the facts, as supported by the written documentation, and to see if there is any possibility of reaching some amicable resolution, short of suit." In a September 20 response, Red Lion, through Gustafson, offered Fair "the opportunity to return to her position in Room Service at the Red Lion Hotel, Colorado Springs." The offer (Reinstatement Offer), by its terms, would be held open until October 3, 1990, and if not accepted, would be considered rejected.
Responding to the Reinstatement Offer, by letter dated October 1, Fair's attorney wrote back:
If all of the monetary damages incurred by Ms. Fair as a result of her wrongful termination could be reimbursed to her, she would be willing to accept a position with the hotel. However, due to the apprehension she feels regarding her security in such a position, she would need to have certain special conditions met:
1. She would return to a position at the front desk for the Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift.
2. All her employee benefits must be restored without penalty for their interruption.
3. Certain restrictions must be placed on the Red Lion's termination of employment rights.
4. She must be able to transfer to another Red Lion Hotel with the same contract of employment.
On October 9, 1990, Gustafson sent a letter to Fair's attorney clarifying the terms of the Reinstatement Offer. The letter stated in part:
Please be aware that our offer of reinstatement includes restoration of the appropriate benefits with coverage bridged as Ms. Fair would maintain her original hire date.
We have offered to return Ms. Fair to her former position in Room Service as that is the position she is qualified to fill. Your first request to return in a position for which she is not trained and, in essence does not exist due to the hours and days stipulation you have made, cannot be considered.
As an active Red Lion employee, Ms. Fair would have the rights [sic] to transfer based on company policy just as any other employee would. For scheduling purposes, please have Ms. Fair contact me no later than October 15, 1990 or we will consider she has declined our offer of reinstatement and voluntarily resigned her position.
Neither Fair nor her attorney contacted Gustafson before October 15, nor did they otherwise affirmatively respond to the Reinstatement Offer to further clarify, to accept, or to reject the offer.
At trial, Fair testified that she did not accept the Reinstatement Offer because: (1) she believed that she would be terminated again as a form of retaliation; (2) she was concerned about her physical condition due to her pregnancy; and (3) she was uncertain of the meaning of the term "appropriate benefits" in the Reinstatement Offer. Fair did not, however, convey any of her concerns or otherwise discuss the terms of the Reinstatement Offer with her immediate supervisor, or any other person at Red Lion. Instead, by not responding by October 15, Red Lion assumed that Fair "declined" the Reinstatement Offer. Fair did, however, call the insurance company that provided medical benefits for Red Lion employees to ask whether Red Lion had the ability to bridge benefits. An employee of the insurance company told Fair that the determination to bridge benefits did not belong to Red Lion; rather, the insurance company itself made decisions regarding who was covered.
For reasons not reflected in the record, Fair did not share this information with Red Lion. In addition, Fair did not communicate with Red Lion to express any concerns, about her physical condition or otherwise, regarding the Reinstatement Offer.
B.
On November 13, 1991, Fair commenced this action in the El Paso County District Court by filing her complaint naming Red Lion as the defendant. In the complaint, Fair alleged that Red Lion breached an implied employment contract, among other claims. Through her complaint, Fair essentially asserted that the employment manual and the medical leave of absence form created a valid implied contract of employment that Red Lion failed to honor. The case eventually proceeded to trial.
Fair's other claims were dismissed on Red Lion's motion for summary judgment and as those claims are not before us, they are not relevant under our order granting certiorari and we do not address them here.
At trial, Red Lion argued that Fair failed to mitigate her damages by rejecting its offer of reinstatement and, by motion, asked the trial court to direct a verdict and to limit damages. The trial court denied that motion and after the close of evidence, submitted both the questions of liability and damages to the jury. Finding Red Lion liable for breach of contract, the jury awarded Fair $140,000 in actual damages, including damages for loss of salary after Red Lion's offer of reinstatement. The trial court entered final judgment in the amount of $183,414.06, representing the amount of actual damages plus statutory interest of $43,414.06.
Red Lion appealed to the court of appeals. The court of appeals upheld the jury's finding of liability but, concluding that Fair was limited to recovery of damages incurred before Red Lion's unconditional offer of reinstatement, reversed the jury award of damages, and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. See Fair, 920 P.2d at 822-23. Fair filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the decision of the court of appeals was in error and that Red Lion was not entitled to a directed verdict limiting the amount Fair is entitled to recover under Red Lion's defense that she failed to mitigate her damages. Due to the importance of the questions raised by Fair's petition, we granted certiorari.
II.
"A motion for directed verdict should not be granted unless the evidence compels the conclusion that reasonable jurors could not disagree and that no evidence or inference has been received at trial upon which a verdict against the moving party could be sustained." Mile Hi Concrete, Inc. v. Matz, 842 P.2d 198, 205 n. 14 (Colo. 1992) (citing Smith v. City County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1128 (Colo. 1986)). If a trial judge concludes that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the plaintiff's favor, a defendant's directed verdict motion cannot be granted. See Mile Hi Concrete, 842 P.2d at 205 n. 14. The trial judge must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Smith, 726 P.2d at 1128; Palmer v. A.H. Robins Co., 684 P.2d 187, 218 (Colo. 1984).
However, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving or opposing party, if the trial court determines the evidence submitted is not in dispute and "compels the conclusion that the minds of reasonable [jurors] could not [render a] verdict against the moving party," a directed verdict may be entered. McGlasson v. Barger, 163 Colo. 438, 442, 431 P.2d 778, 779 (1967) (citing Nettrour v. J.C. Penney Co., 146 Colo. 150, 360 P.2d 964 (1961)). The complex nature of a question usually reserved for the jury militates against a directed verdict. See id. at 442, 431 P.2d at 780.
It is well established by our precedent that an injured party claiming breach of contract "has the duty to take such steps as are reasonable under the circumstances in order to mitigate or minimize the damages sustained." Ballow v. Phico Ins. Co., 878 P.2d 672, 680 (Colo. 1994) (citing Tull v. Gundersons, Inc., 709 P.2d 940, 946 (Colo. 1985)); Technical Computer Servs., Inc. v. Buckley, 844 P.2d 1249, 1255 (Colo.App. 1992). "This means that the plaintiff may not recover damages for injuries which he or she reasonably might have avoided." Ballow, 878 P.2d at 680. Mitigation or failure to mitigate is an affirmative defense that may be raised by the defendant and the defendant bears the burden of proving the defense. See C.R.C.P. 8(c); Ballow, 878 P.2d at 680; see also Burt v. Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church, 809 P.2d 1064, 1068 (Colo.App. 1990); Comfort Homes, Inc. v. Peterson, 37 Colo. App. 516, 519, 549 P.2d 1087, 1090 (1976); CJI-Civ.3d 5:2.
The defense of failure to mitigate damages is satisfied when the injured party fails to take reasonable steps to minimize the resulting damages. See Burt, 809 P.2d at 1068; see also Berger v. Security Pac. Info. Sys., Inc., 795 P.2d 1380, 1385 (Colo.App. 1990). A plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages is excused, however, if mitigation would require inordinate or unreasonable measures or if there were reasonable grounds for the failure to mitigate. See Berger, 795 P.2d at 1385.
Generally, the question of what constitutes reasonable effort in mitigation of damages is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. See Fitzgerald v. Edelen, 623 P.2d 418, 422 (Colo.App. 1980). However, the defense of failure to mitigate damages will not be presented to the jury unless the trial court determines there is sufficient evidence to support it. See Burt, 809 P.2d at 1068; see also Hildyard v. Western Fasteners, Inc., 33 Colo. App. 396, 404, 522 P.2d 596, 600 (1974). A trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. See Burt, 809 P.2d at 1068.
There is ample support both in the federal courts and our sister jurisdictions for the rule that whether an employee's failure to mitigate is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. See Life Care Ctrs. of America, Inc. v. Charles Town Assocs., 79 F.3d 496, 514 (6th Cir. 1996); Frieburg Farm Equip., Inc. v. Van Dale, Inc., 978 F.2d 395, 403 (7th Cir. 1992); Pierce v. F.R. Tripler Co., 955 F.2d 820, 830 (2d Cir. 1992); Ortiz v. Bank of America Nat'l Trust Sav. Ass'n, 852 F.2d 383, 387 (9th Cir. 1987); O'Donnell v. Georgia Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 748 F.2d 1543, 1551 (11th Cir. 1984); Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp., 517 N.W.2d 19, 27-28 (Mich. 1994); Hughes v. Park Place Motor Inn, Inc., 446 N.W.2d 885, 889 (Mich. App. 1989); Hawkes v. Norfolk Western Ry. Co., 876 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Mo.Ct.App. 1994); Pacesetter Corp. v. Barrickman, 885 S.W.2d 256, 263 (Tex.Ct.App. 1994).
III.
With our settled law as context, we now address the specific issue and question of first impression before us: whether, as a matter of law, Fair presented sufficient evidence to show that she did mitigate her damages and therefore she should not be prohibited from recovering damages for lost compensation after the date of the Reinstatement Offer.
A.
The court of appeals reasoned that:
Depending upon the substance of the offer and the circumstances under which it is made, an employee may be required to accept an offer of reemployment from the original employer as part of his or her duty to mitigate damages. A claimant may forfeit all or part of claimed rights to back pay if he or she refuses a job offered by the previous employer that is substantially equivalent to the one from which he or she was wrongfully terminated so long as acceptance of the reemployment offer would not effect an abandonment of the employee's rights under the original contract.
Fair, 920 P.2d at 827 (citations omitted). The court of appeals went on to conclude that if the injured party receives an unconditional offer of reinstatement to the same or a similar position and rejects such unconditional offer in the absence of special circumstances, the ongoing accrual of damages must terminate. See id.
See also Smith v. World Ins. Co., 38 F.3d 1456, 1464 (8th Cir. 1994) (unreasonable rejection of reinstatement offer terminates accrual of back pay damages); Pierce, 955 F.2d at 830 (unconditional offer of job substantially similar to the one denied plaintiff may, as a matter of law, toll back pay); Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481, 1493 (10th Cir. 1989) (same); Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198, 1203 (7th Cir. 1989) (accrual of damages for discriminatory discharge is terminated when employee unreasonably refuses offer of reinstatement); Giandonato v. Sybron Corp., 804 F.2d 120, 124 (10th Cir. 1986) (absent special circumstances, a claimant forfeits his right to back pay if he refuses a job substantially equivalent to the one he was denied); O'Donnell, 748 F.2d at 1550 (an unreasonably refused offer of reinstatement precludes recovery of both front pay and back pay); Fiedler v. Indianhead Touch Line, Inc., 670 F.2d 806, 808-09 (8th Cir. 1982) (same); McCue v. State of Kansas, Dep't of Human Resources, 948 F. Supp. 965, 968 (D. Kan. 1996) (same); Cowen v. Standard Brands, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1576, 1581 (N.D. Ala. 1983) (same).
The court of appeals noted that whether an employee has shown special circumstances which justify a refusal of an unconditional offer to return to employment is generally a question for the trier of fact. See Fair, 920 P.2d at 827. The court of appeals then held, however, that when a court, upon consideration of all relevant circumstances, concludes that the proffered reasons for rejecting reinstatement are insufficient as a matter of law, it should direct a verdict for the employer on the issue of damages. See id. In other words, "once the employer demonstrates that an unconditional offer of reemployment was made, the burden of going forward shifts to the employee to demonstrate valid reasons for a refusal to accept the offer," id., and if the employee fails to satisfy such burden, the trial court should direct a verdict limiting the employee's right to damages. The court of appeals relied on Giandonato v. Sybron Corp., 804 F.2d 120 (10th Cir. 1986), for this conclusion. In Giandonato, the Tenth Circuit held that the trial court erred in denying the employer's motion for a directed verdict because the employee's reasons for rejecting the employer's several reinstatement offers were not sufficient to create an issue for the jury. 804 F.2d at 123.
See Taylor v. Teletype Corp., 648 F.2d 1129, 1139 (8th Cir. 1981) (trial court must consider all the circumstances under which the reemployment offer was made and rejected, including the terms of the offer and the reasons for refusal).
While the issue of reasonableness of the injured party's refusal to accept a reinstatement offer is a question for the jury, there are certain instances where there is insufficient evidence for the issue to reach the jury. If the record is "devoid of the minimal amount of evidence upon which the jury could have reached its verdict," Feldman v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 43 F.3d 823, 833 (3d Cir. 1994), or if it is possible to reach only one reasonable conclusion, see Frieburg Farm Equip., Inc., 978 F.2d at 403, then the question of whether an injured person acted reasonably to mitigate damages should not go to the jury. A trial court may conclude that a jury could not find, based on the evidence, that the rejection of the reinstatement offer was reasonable and thereby preclude the jury from deciding the issue. Cf. World Ins. Co., 38 F.3d at 1464 (concluding that a jury could have found that the rejection was reasonable based not on one of the reasons, but on the totality of the circumstances).
In determining that the employee's reasons were not valid, the Tenth Circuit applied the "special circumstances" test. Id. at 124 ("Under Ford Motor Co., a claimant, absent `special circumstances,' forfeits his right to backpay `if he refuses a job substantially equivalent to the one he was denied.'"). Applying that principle to wrongful termination actions, the Tenth Circuit held that "the circumstances surrounding an employer's refusal to accept reinstatement may affect [his] right to additional relief." Id.
In other jurisdictions, "special circumstances" have been held to include rejecting reinstatement because to accept would be offensive or degrading, see Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., 483 N.W.2d 701, 709 (Minn. 1992), or because to accept would constitute a disadvantageous renegotiation of the original contract or an abandonment of rights and remedies thereunder, see Schwarze v. Solo Cup Co., 445 N.E.2d 872, 876 (Ill.App.Ct. 1983). Such circumstances, however, do not include a fear of discrimination without evidence that that fear is substantiated, see Brady v. Nestor, 496 N.E.2d 148, 151 (Mass. 1986), or a feeling that the offer is not bona fide, see Giandonato, 804 F.2d at 125.
B.
As discussed above, we have previously recognized the general duty of an injured party to mitigate damages flowing from a breach of contract. Today, we unequivocally hold that the same doctrine shall be applied in circumstances involving employment agreements. Hence, we must now determine whether the evidence in this case regarding the circumstances surrounding Fair's rejection of the Reinstatement Offer was sufficient to create an issue for the jury regarding the reasonableness of Fair's failure to mitigate her damages.
Fair argues that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed because it is not supported by the record. Fair contends that the issue of whether her refusal of the Reinstatement Offer was a reasonable failure to mitigate is a question of fact solely for the jury and that the trial court judgment should be upheld on appeal. Because we find that the reasons offered by Fair do not, as a matter of law, constitute special circumstances evincing a reasonable basis for rejecting Red Lion's offer of reinstatement, we disagree.
Moreover, like the court of appeals, we also find support in Giandonato v. Sybron Corp., 804 F.2d 120 (10th Cir. 1986). The facts in Giandonato are strikingly similar to those here. In determining whether Fair's reasons for rejecting Red Lion's reinstatement offer were valid, we find the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit in Giandonato persuasive.
Although Giandonato involved a statutory duty to mitigate and such a statutory duty does not exist here, we still find Giandonato compelling because our Colorado precedent recognizes a similar affirmative duty to mitigate or minimize damages.
In deciding this case, we are not unmindful of the longstanding precedent cited and relied upon by Red Lion. See Ryan v. Mineral County High Sch. Dist., 27 Colo. App 63, 146 P. 792 (1915). In Ryan, the plaintiff received and accepted an offer to serve as principal of a high school. Id. at 64-65, 146 P. at 793-94. When the school board voted again and decided to offer the position to another person, it offered the plaintiff an alternative position as grade school superintendent in the same town for the same time at the same salary. See id. at 68, 146 P. at 795. The plaintiff rejected the offer because in order to obtain it he would have had to release his claim against the school district for breach of contract based on the principal position. See id. Despite the conditional nature of the alternative offer, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment that the release did not justify refusal on the ground that it would not have been any actual loss to the plaintiff since the salary, term, and locality were the same. See id. at 70, 146 P. at 795. Our holding today only permits application of the mitigation defense when accompanied by an unconditional offer. To the extent that the holding in Ryan differs from our disposition today, we disapprove of the reasoning and result in that case.
In Giandonato, the plaintiff, Nunzio Giandonato, a/k/a John Donato (Donato), worked for Sybron Corporation for over fourteen years as a salesman of process control instrumentation units. 804 F.2d at 120. After a slow year in 1982, Donato's supervisor gave him a choice of continued employment subject to a three-month probation or early retirement with severance pay and extended benefits. See id. at 121. Donato decided to resign and also filed an age discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See id. While Sybron denied that any age discrimination had occurred, it made several verbal and written offers to reinstate Donato to his former position on comparable terms; however, Donato rejected every offer. See id.
When Sybron argued that its liability for back pay should be limited due to Donato's failure to mitigate by rejecting the offers, Donato asserted three reasons for his rejection of the offers, including that: (1) he did not want to work under his previous supervisor; (2) he had uncertainties about the offers; and (3) his wife was terminally ill with cancer. See id. at 122. In response, Sybron presented evidence that not only had it offered to have Donato work under another supervisor, but Donato never asked Sybron to address any of his concerns. See id.
Reversing the trial court's denial of Sybron's directed verdict motion, the Tenth Circuit held that Donato's refusal to return to work because his wife was ill and because he did not want to work under his previous supervisor were not valid reasons for refusing the offers of reinstatement. See id. at 124. With respect to Donato's uncertainties regarding the offers, the court observed that Donato never requested clarification of the terms of the offers. See id. at 125. Relying on Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982), the Tenth Circuit held that an employee is obligated to minimize his damages by accepting his former employer's offer of reinstatement to a position "substantially equivalent" to his previous job. See Giandonato, 804 F.2d at 124.
In Ford Motor Co., the Supreme Court, construing section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), considered whether an employer charged with discrimination in hiring can toll the continuing accrual of back pay liability simply by unconditionally offering the claimant the job previously denied, or whether the employer must offer seniority retroactive to the date of the alleged discrimination. 458 U.S. at 220. The Court held that a claimant forfeits his right to back pay if he refuses a job substantially equivalent to the one he was denied. See id. at 232. There are no similarly controlling Colorado statutes; however, we find the principles announced in Ford Motor Co. persuasive.
Here, Fair testified that she rejected the Reinstatement Offer because: (1) she believed that she would be terminated again as a form of retaliation; (2) she was concerned about her physical condition due to her pregnancy; and (3) she was uncertain of the meaning of the terms "appropriate benefits" in the Reinstatement Offer. However, at trial Fair did not produce evidence sufficient to articulate a basis for her belief and concerns based upon the specific terms and conditions of the offer or identifiable conduct of Red Lion or its employees or agents. Thus, without more, the reasons proffered by Fair are insufficient as a matter of law to create a triable issue for the jury's consideration.
Fair's first reason — a fear of retaliatory termination after rehire — is not a valid reason for rejecting Red Lion's Reinstatement Offer. Fair testified that she did not accept the Reinstatement Offer because she did not believe that Red Lion had any intention of upholding it. However, Fair did not indicate any basis for such belief, nor did she suggest any conduct by Red Lion or those in its employ which fairly indicates such a predisposition. Moreover, Fair's employment by Red Lion was clearly at will. Red Lion is only required to offer Fair reinstatement to a position of equivalent terms and conditions. Red Lion is not required to offer Fair a position with better terms than she had previously. See Ford Motor Co., 458 U.S. at 232, 234; see also Campbell v. Kansas State Univ., 780 F. Supp. 755, 766 (D. Kan. 1991) (holding that plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by refusing comparable full-time positions offered by the university). Consequently, since Red Lion's offer was consistent with Fair's previous employment position, her rejection of the offer due to its lack of assurance against future termination was not reasonable.
At trial, Fair testified that she considered one of her supervisors, Stefan Harrison, to be a "mentor" and that they worked closely. She also testified that Harrison often inquired about her opinion regarding other employees and encouraged her to move up in the company because she had the qualities and he was "proud of her." Fair further testified that she received numerous commendations, including employee of the month, and that she "never had any problems with anybody" or any disputes with her supervisor, Barr. In fact, Fair testified that she felt that Robert Deans was a good general manager of Red Lion.
In addition, the record fails to suggest and Fair did not specify what, if anything, in the offer or Red Lion's conduct caused her to believe that the offer was anything but a bona fide unconditional offer of reinstatement. See Saladin v. Turner, 936 F. Supp. 1571, 1582 (N.D. Okla. 1996) (employee gave no proof that the reinstatement offer, if accepted, would not have been honored by the employer). The evidence indicates that Fair was both competent and efficient in the performance of her duties and that her supervisors valued her service to the company. In fact, during trial, Fair was very complimentary of her supervisors and spoke positively about her relationship with her supervisors and their influence upon her. Thus, her fear that the offer was not bona fide is not supported by the record and therefore does not constitute a reasonable basis for rejection of the Reinstatement Offer.
Fair's second reason for rejecting the Reinstatement Offer was that she was concerned about performing the duties of a coffee break attendant during her pregnancy. However, on cross-examination, Fair testified that she had no physical restrictions at the time she refused the Reinstatement Offer. Moreover, Fair failed to communicate any concern regarding physical limitations in her letter requesting special conditions. Certainly, the fact of particular limitations due to her pregnancy would have been relevant information to relay to Red Lion. Fair also neglected to discuss any physical restrictions with anyone at Red Lion. Thus, while we do not exclude physical limitations per se as a reasonable basis to reject a reinstatement offer, in this case we are not persuaded that it was sufficiently presented to evince a reasonable basis to reject the Reinstatement Offer.
The parties have not argued that Red Lion failed to offer reasonable accommodations for Fair in light of her pregnancy. Therefore, we do not reach the question of whether and to what extent the employer has a duty to accommodate a pregnant employee.
Fair's third reason for rejecting the Reinstatement Offer — that she was concerned about what benefits were in fact included within the term "appropriate benefits" — is also an unreasonable basis for rejecting the offer. First, it is undisputed that Fair never contacted anyone at Red Lion to discuss her concerns or to inquire about the meaning of "appropriate benefits." Instead, Fair, without further inquiry of Red Lion or communication of her concerns, rejected the offer out of hand. Even if Red Lion's medical insurance carrier had declined to continue insurance coverage for Fair, which it did not do, that alone would not be a sufficient basis for rejecting Red Lion's unconditional offer. As the court of appeals noted, the Reinstatement Offer was not contingent. If the carrier did not provide coverage, Fair would be covered because Red Lion would still be bound, even if forced to incur additional expenses for her coverage. At trial, Fair admitted that despite contrary information from Red Lion's insurance carrier, she assumed that Red Lion had the right to bridge benefits and could do so by paying the insurance company directly. Thus, it is clear that Fair's concern about benefits could not stand as a reasonable basis to reject Red Lion's Reinstatement Offer.
Furthermore, the letter containing the Reinstatement Offer represented a written commitment by Red Lion to provide benefits for Fair. Since the letter was offering reinstatement to her former position in Room Service, it would be reasonable to assume that "appropriate benefits" would mean as is normally provided for a person in that position, i.e., the same as what she formerly received. However, even if Fair did not read "appropriate benefits" as the same benefits as she had previously, she could have called her supervisor or Gustafson to determine the meaning of that term and to clear up any confusion on her part.
In July, Fair had a full release to return to work stating that she was "capable of returning to work with no [physical] restrictions" whatsoever. Having been so informed by an employee and the employee's physician, it would be unreasonable to require an employer to include within an unconditional offer of reinstatement an accommodation for physical limitations or a change in responsibilities or position of employment solely because the employer is aware the employee is pregnant. Such a result cannot be supported by reason.
The court of appeals concluded that the grounds for refusal presented by Fair do not, as a matter of law, constitute sufficient special circumstances that would permit presentation of the mitigation issue to the jury. See Fair, 920 P.2d at 828. In her testimony at trial, Fair did not articulate a basis for rejecting Red Lion's offer grounded in the terms and conditions of reinstatement different from her position with Red Lion when discharged, nor one based on Red Lion's conduct or specific incidents or events related to her continuing relationship with Red Lion if she accepted the offer. Because at trial Fair did not present sufficient evidence for the issue of reasonableness of Fair's failure to mitigate to go to the jury, the court of appeals correctly decided that the issue of damages should not have been submitted to the jury without a limiting instruction.
IV.
By our holding today, we do not question the reasonableness of Fair's apprehensions. It goes without saying that an employee who has suffered a wrongful discharge will, as a natural consequence, have the trust and confidence once reposed in an employer diminished by the experience. However, this is true of any party to a contract in which the other party has broken its promise and breached their agreement. The injured party will have apprehensions about future dealings under the contract and, of course, the contract relationship will be affected. Nonetheless, sound principles of contract law in the commercial and employment setting and our precedent, confirmed by our decision in Ballow v. Phico Insurance Co., 878 P.2d 672 (Colo. 1994), ordain the principles we acknowledge today: The injured party claiming breach of an employment agreement has a duty to mitigate or minimize damages. In the employment agreement context, such duty includes the acceptance of an unconditional offer of reinstatement where no special circumstances exist to justify rejection.
In sum, we conclude that in the absence of special circumstances, an employee's rejection of a former employer's unconditional offer of reinstatement constitutes a failure to mitigate damages. The result of such failure to mitigate damages is a loss of any claim to damages based upon the accrual of back pay from the date of the reinstatement offer. Here, we hold that Fair's reasons for rejecting Red Lion's reinstatement offer do not rise to the level of "special circumstances" justifying rejection of the offer. As such, we agree with the court of appeals' conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence on the issue of the reasonableness of Fair's rejection of Red Lion's reinstatement offer and that the trial court erred in refusing to limit the damages award.
V.
Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment reversing the award of damages and remanding the case for a new trial on damages only.
JUSTICE MULLARKEY dissents, and JUSTICE HOBBS and JUSTICE BENDER join in the dissent.