Giles v. General Electric Co.

Revised IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 99-11059 _______________ CHARLES M. GILES, Plaintiff-Appellee- Cross-Appellant, VERSUS GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant- Cross-Appellee. _________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas _________________________ March 19, 2001 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, favor of Giles. GE further appeals the award Circuit Judges. of attorneys’ fees. Giles cross-appeals the quantum of damages and the dismissal of his JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: retaliation claim under state law. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further This appeal arises out of a disability dis- proceedings. crimination suit filed by Charles Giles against General Electric Company (“GE”), which ap- I. peals the denial of its motion for judgment as Beginning in 1978, Giles worked as a a matter of law (“j.m.l.”) following a verdict in Class A Machinist.1 In April 1995, he injured interference with his relationship with Coliga- his back lifting toolboxes while traveling home do, Giles thereafter sought treatment from Dr. from a customer location. Although he tried John Milani, who performed surgery in March to work thereafter, the pain forced him, in a 1996 and thereafter prescribed a second FCE. few days, to seek treatment from Dr. Eric In light of the FCE results, Milani Coligado, who in July 1995 released him to recommended in June 1996 that Giles limit his return to GE, where he attempted to work for work to a “medium physical demand level” approximately a week before succumbing and shortly thereafter released him to work but again to back pain. imposed a permanent lifting restriction of fifty pounds. The following month, Coligado prescribed a functional capacity evaluation (“FCE”), on On August 6, 1996, Milani informed GE the basis of which2 he concluded that Giles had that the restrictions would not allow Giles to attained maximum medical improvement and return to work as a Class A Machinist.3 In an rated him as nine percent impairedSSmeaning August 13 meeting with GE representatives, Giles exhibited ninety-one percent of the phys- Giles learned that, based at least in part on ical capacity of an unimpaired person. In Sep- Milani’s findings, GE would not allow him to tember 1995, Coligado released Giles to work return to work. once again, this time under permanent lifting restrictions. Giles filed an application for disability pen- sion GE in November 1996. As a condition of On October 12, Coligado released Giles to eligibility for the pension, Giles asserted that a transitional work program with a twenty- he was “permanently incapacitated for further pound lifting restriction but, five days work.” GE approved the application, and laterSSapparently at the urging of a nurse in Giles began receiving payments under the the employ of GESSrescinded the restriction. pension plan in April 1997. Giles further Giles refused to work, however, contending sought long term disability (“LTD”) benefits, that he was unable to lift even twenty pounds. which GE agreed to pay through April 1997, Upset with what he regarded as GE’s backdated to October 1995. After Giles’s LTD benefits expired, he filed with GE in July 1997 a written request for accommodation un- 1 As a Class A Machinist, Giles repaired com- der the Americans with Disabilities Act ponents of power-generating equipment produced (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. by GE. The position required occasional travel to customer locations and the lifting of objects weighing up to ninety pounds. According to Giles 3 and GE, the position “entailed a lot of crawling Giles testified that Milani’s conclusion re- around into steam turbines” and represented “very garding his inability to return to work was based on physical and heavy work.” an erroneous job description GE had given to Milani. According to Giles, GE furnished to Mi- 2 The FCE results indicated that Giles lani the job description for a welder, which frequently could lift twenty to twenty-five pounds required, inter alia, lifting equipment that weighed and occasionally fifty pounds. Coligado interpret- over sixty-seven pounds, and lifting parts that ed these results as indicating that Giles could not weighed up to one hundred pounds to a height of “safely go back to his regular duty work.” forty inches. 2 Giles submitted to a third FCE, which qual- the close of Giles’s case in chief. First, GE ified him to work only at “medium duty” argued that Giles had failed to prove that he positions. Failing to secure an unqualified re- was a qualified individual under the ADA and lease to work, he applied for Social Security that he was judicially estopped from claiming Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) in September qualified individual status. Second, GE 1997. The Social Security Administration asserted that Giles had failed to prove the rejected the application, however, finding that elements of a retaliation claim under the ADA. “[his] condition does not prevent [him] from The court denied the motion with respect to performing [his] previous job as a machinist as Giles’s status as a qualified individual5 and it is generally performed.” granted it with respect to the retaliation claim. II. The jury made the following findings via Giles sued in November 1997, asserting special verdict: (1) Giles is a qualified claims for discrimination under the ADA and individual with a disability; (2) his disability the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act was a motivating factor in GE’s refusal to (“TCHRA”), TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.001 et seq. rehire him; (3) the reasonable accommodation He followed with an amended complaint, ad- requested by Giles would not impose an undue ding a claim for retaliation under the ADA, a burden on GE; (4) GE failed to make a good claim for retaliation under TEX. LAB. CODE faith effort reasonably to accommodate Giles’s Ann. § 451.001,4 and state tort claims. The disability; (5) Giles is entitled to $400,000 in court granted GE’s motion for summary judg- compensatory damages; (6) GE violated ment on the state tort and retaliation claims Giles’s rights under the ADA with malice or and reserved judgment on GE’s contention reckless indifference; and (7) Giles is entitled that Giles’s SSDI and LTD benefit to $800,000 in punitive damages. Citing 42 applications estopped him from asserting that U.S.C. § 1981a(3)(D), the court limited the he was a qualified individual for purposes of award to $300,000,6 denied Giles’s motion for the ADA. The court considered the impact of back pay, awarded front pay of $141,110, and Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems granted Giles attorneys’ fees of $150,837. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999), then denied sum- mary judgment on the estoppel issue, ruling GE filed a post-judgment motion for j.m.l. that Giles had sufficiently explained the under FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a), contending that discrepancies between his assertions on the ap- plications and his contention that he was a 5 qualified individual. See Giles v. Gen. Elec. The court stated that it was “going to deny the Co., Civ. Ac. No. 3-97-CV-2774-H, 1999 motion [with respect to Giles’s status as a qualified U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9369 (N.D. Tex. June 9, individual] . . . and we’ll see how we do on that.” 1999). 6 The district court characterized the limited award wholly as compensatory damages, GE moved for j.m.l. on several issues after neglecting any punitive award, because the jury’s compensatory award alone exceeded the statutory cap. We reject this characterization for the 4 The amended complaint did not cite the rel- purpose of evaluating whether Giles’s injuries evant Texas statute but merely referenced “Federal supported the compensatory award. See infra part and State anti-retaliation laws.” IV.A. 3 (1) Giles’s statements on his SSDI and benefit Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. applications estop him from asserting his status 1997) (en banc). as a “qualified individual with a disability” un- der the ADA; (2) Giles is not a qualified If the facts and inferences point so individual with a disability, because he could strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of not have performed his job even with one party that the Court believes that reasonable accommodation; (3) Giles is not reasonable men could not arrive at a disabled for purposes of the ADA, because he contrary verdict, granting of the was not restricted from a broad class of jobs; motion[] is proper. On the other hand, (4) GE does not regard Giles as disabled;7 if there is substantial evidence opposed (5) GE has a policy of not allowing restricted to the motion[], that is, evidence of such individuals to return to work and could not be quality and weight that reasonable and required to act contrary to that policy;8 fair-minded men in the exercise of (6) Giles is not entitled to an award of front impartial judgment might reach different pay; and (7) the attorneys’ fee award is conclusions, the motion[] should be excessive. The court denied the motion in all denied, and the case submitted to the respects. jury. GE appeals the denial of the rule 50 Id. Accord Piotrowski v. City of Houston, motion, the magnitude of the damage award, 237 F.3d 567, 576 n.9 (5th Cir. 2001). and the order awarding attorneys’ fees. Giles cross-appeals the refusal to award back pay, The court denied GE’s motion for j.m.l. the limitation of the compensatory and made at the close of Giles’s case. Under rule punitive awards, and the order setting off 50(b), if a party moves for j.m.l. at the close of Giles’s disability benefits against his award. all the evidence, it may renew its motion after judgment. The right to renew the motion III. post-judgment can be waived, however: “[B]y We turn first to GE’s arguments. When re- introducing its own evidence after the viewing the denial of j.m.l., we “consider all of plaintiff’s case in chief, and by failing to renew the evidence . . . in the light and with all rea- the motion for [j.m.l.], the defense waive[s] its sonable inferences” in favor of the party motion for judgment after the verdict.” Tamez opposing the motion. Boeing Co. v. Shipman, v. City of San Marcos, 118 F.3d 1085, 1089 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc), (5th Cir. 1997).9 Nonetheless, we “ha[ve] overruled on other grounds by Gatreaux v. been willing to excuse certain ‘de minimis’ de- partures from technical compliance with Rule 50(b),” McCann, 984 F.2d at 671, if the 7 purposes of the rule have been met;10 thus, we We need not address this argument, because the verdict is sufficiently supported by the finding that Giles in fact was disabled for purposes of the 9 ADA. See infra part III.B. See rule 50(b); McCann v. Tex. City Refining, Inc., 984 F.2d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 1993). 8 Although, in its motion for j.m.l., GE argued 10 that its policy preempts liability under the ADA, it Rule 50(b) serves two purposes: does not pursue that issue on appeal. (continued...) 4 generally have excused violations of rule 50(b) Cir. 1978)). GE failed to comply with rule only where 50(b) in moving for j.m.l after judgment. Be- cause the post-judgment motion for j.m.l. the trial court had reserved a ruling on argued several issues, we analyze each an earlier motion for directed verdict separately to determine whether GE’s (made at the close of the plaintiff’s shortcoming can be considered de minimis. evidence); the defendant called no more than two witnesses before closing; only A. a few minutes elapsed between the 1. motion for directed verdict and the The first issue GE raised in its post- conclusion of all the evidence; and the judgment motion for j.m.l. is whether the plaintiff introduced no rebuttal evidence. statements on Giles’s SSDI and LTD applications operate judicially to estop him Id.11 being a claimant under the ADA. We conclude that, with respect to this issue, GE’s If a defendant has waived its right to move failure to comply with the strictures of rule for j.m.l. after judgment, we review merely for 50(b) are excusable. plain error and reverse only if the judgment works a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” Mc- First, the court arguably reserved ruling on Cann, 984 F.2d at 673 (quoting Coughlin v. that issue when it was raised at the close of Capitol Cement Co., 571 F.2d 290, 297 (5th Giles’s case. Although the court denied the motion, it added, “we’ll see how we do on that,” indicating a willingness to revisit the 10 issue at the close of all the evidence. Second, (...continued) GE’s only witness, Bob Scaggs, had first been to enable the trial court to re-examine the question of evidentiary insufficiency as a called by Giles. Importantly, his testimony matter of law if the jury returns a verdict was unrelated to the issue of Giles’s SSDI and contrary to the movant, and to alert the op- LTD applications; furthermore, GE posing party to the insufficiency before the contendsSSand Giles does not disputeSSthat case is submitted to the jury, thereby Scaggs testified for only an hour.12 Third, as affording it an opportunity to cure any in the cases cited in McCann, the plaintiff here defects in proof should the motion have mer- presented no rebuttal case. it. Most importantly, allowing GE to seek Bohrer v. Hanes Corp., 715 F.2d 213, 216 (5th j.m.l. on the estoppel issue does not thwart the Cir. 1983). purposes of rule 50(b). The issue of estoppel 11 was well-litigated. Both parties briefed it, and But see Tamez, 118 F.3d at 1091 (upholding j.m.l. despite fact that defendant’s case in chief the court tendered a ruling before trial. In included five witnesses and lasted over five hours, because the court had discussed the j.m.l. 12 extensively with the parties and expressly had Although Giles does not dispute GE’s reserved ruling on the motion at the close of assertion that Scaggs testified for only an hour, he plaintiff’s case, so plaintiff was not unfairly notes that Scaggs’s direct testimony comprises surprised). fifty-three pages of transcript. 5 addition, in cross-examination and redirect tes- [A] plaintiff's sworn assertion in an timony, Giles discussed his SSDI and LTD ap- application for disability benefits that she plications. After moving for j.m.l. at the close is, for example, “unable to work” will of Giles’s case, GE did not address the issue in appear to negate an essential element of its own case in chief, and Giles presented no her ADA caseSSat least if she does not rebuttal evidence. Thus, the issue had offer a sufficient explanation. For that developed no further by the close of the reason, we hold that an ADA plaintiff evidence than it had when GE first moved for cannot simply ignore the apparent j.m.l. Therefore, Giles could not have been contradiction that arises out of the unfairly surprised by the motion for j.m.l. on earlier SSDI total disability claim. Rath- this issue after judgment. We thus review the er, she must proffer a sufficient issue of estoppel under the Boeing standard. explanation. 2. ... To present a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Giles must . . . When faced with a plaintiff's prove that “[he] is a qualified individual with a previous sworn statement asserting “to- disability and that the negative employment tal disability” or the like, [a] court action occurred because of the disability.” should require an explanation of any ap- Sherrod v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112, parent inconsistency with the necessary 1119 (5th Cir. 1998); see 42 U.S.C. § elements of an ADA claim. To defeat 12112(a). A “qualified individual with a summary judgment, that explanation disability” is defined by the ADA as someone must be sufficient to warrant a rea- who has a disability, but who, “with or without sonable juror’s concluding that, reasonable accommodation, can perform the assuming the truth of, or the plaintiff's essential functions of the employment position good faith belief in, the earlier that such individual holds or desires.” 42 statement, the plaintiff could nonetheless U.S.C. § 12111(8). “perform the essential functions” of her job, with or without “reasonable GE contends that Giles failed sufficiently to accommodation.” explain the apparent inconsistencies between the statements on his benefit applications and Cleveland, 526 U.S. at 806-07. Under his asserted status as a qualified individual to Cleveland, unless Giles properly explained the enable a reasonable juror to conclude that he discrepancy between his earlier sworn could perform the essential functions of his assertions in his SSDI application, he failed to job, even with reasonable accommodation. demonstrate a material issue of fact with According to GE, Giles therefore is estopped respect to his status as a qualified individual, from claiming he is able to work with and the district court should have granted reasonable accommodation, by virtue of the summary judgment or j.m.l. in favor of GE on fact that his applications for SSDI and LTD that issue. benefits asserted that he was completely disabled. As an initial matter, the assertions in Giles’s SSDI application do not operate judicially to 6 estop him from asserting qualified individual he has “recurrent disk herniation, resulting status only because he failed to obtain benefits with [sic] leg pain & numbness,” “inability to under SSDI. Without an award of SSDI walk more than 1½ blocks,” and a benefits, the inconsistency between Giles’s “perm[anent] [weight] restriction.” The ap- prior statements and his assertions in this plication also stated that Giles has “[c]hronic litigation does not give rise to judicial pain” and that he “can’t walk or stand long,” estoppel: although he contends that he did not make those assertionsSSinstead, he claims, the con- [I]f an individual has merely applied for, sultant hired by GE inserted them after he had but has not been awarded, SSDI completed the form. benefits, any inconsistency in the theory of the claims is of the sort normally tol- Before trial, the court requested briefs on erated by our legal system. Our the issue, then ruled that, because “Giles as- ordinary rules recognize that a person serts he can perform the job with reasonable may not be sure in advance upon which accommodation, and none of the disability legal theory she will succeed, and so programs he applied for account for permit parties to “set forth two or more reasonable accommodations, . . . Plaintiff has statements of a claim or defense offered a sufficient explanation to [survive alternately or hypothetically,” and to summary judgment].” Giles, 1999 U.S. Dist. “state as many separate claims or LEXIS 9369, at *3. Similarly, Giles testified defenses as the party has regardless of that none of the benefit applications at issue consistency.” anticipated reasonable accommodation and that he felt he could perform the job with such Id. at 805. The doctrine of judicial estoppel accommodation. Giles therefore sufficiently therefore is inappropriate in this case. explained the assertions on his SSDI application to allow a reasonable juror to Even without the operation of judicial es- conclude that, notwithstanding his prior toppel, however, the statements on Giles’s representations, he is a qualified individual SSDI application properly could provide the basis for summary judgment if they undermine the factual assertions necessary to his ADA claim.13 Giles’s SSDI application asserted that 13 (...continued) undermined by the plaintiff's previous sworn state- 13 See Albertson v. T.J. Stevenson & Co., 749 ments.”). Although Cleveland dealt with the F.2d 223, 228 (5th Cir. 1984) (“[A] nonmovant interplay between an ADA plaintiff’s assertions at cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by trial and her earlier SSDI application, the Court submitting an affidavit which directly contradicts, limited itself to the question of judicial estoppel; without explanation, his previous testimony.”); see with respect to “factual contradictions,” the Court also Feldman v. Am. Mem’l Life Ins. Co., 196 “[did] not necessarily endorse [existing] cases, but F.3d 783, 791-92 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Judicial estop- [left] the law as we found it.” Cleveland, 526 U.S. pel of an ADA claim, however, is distinguishable at 807. Cleveland is instructive, however, in that from summary judgment against the plaintiff when it borrowed from prior “factual contradiction” cas- factual assertions essential to the claim are es, including Albertson, the requirement that a (continued...) plaintiff explain an apparent contradiction. 7 under the ADA.14 Parker than to Reed or Feldman. The This case is more similar to Cleveland and plaintiff’s application in Reed described specific symptoms that, if accepted as true, would render her unable to obtain a 14 Compare Cleveland, 526 U.S. at 807 government license necessary for the (reasoning that the facts that the assertions on performance of her old position. The court in plaintiff's SSDI application “were made in a forum Reed, 218 F.3d at 480, ruled that such which does not consider the effect that reasonable assertions could not be cured merely by workplace accommodations would have on the testifying that the assertions did not account ability to work” and that the injury apparently for reasonable accommodation. In Feldman, improved between the time she filed the SSDI ap- plication and the time she asserted her status as a the plaintiff failed to provide any explanation qualified individual under the ADA, provided suf- for the factual inconsistencies.15 ficient explanation to survive summary judgment) and Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d In contrast, Giles’s SSDI application is sim- 326, 334 (2d Cir. 2000) (opining that statement on ilar to those in Cleveland and Parker, in that it SSDI application that plaintiff was “still disabled contains no specific assertions resisting his does not dictate the factual conclusion that he was explanation that he could perform his job with incapable of returning on a part-time basis or with reasonable accommodation;16 moreover, like other accommodation,” and plaintiff’s explanation the plaintiffs in Cleveland and Parker, he to that effect precluded summary judgment), with provided such an explanation. While Giles Reed v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 218 F.3d conceded at trial that he suffers pain and labors 477, 480 (5th Cir. 2000) (reasoning that although under a permanent lifting restrictionSSthe two general statement of total disability may not have primary assertions in his applicationSShe been incompatible with qualified individual status, contends that a reasonable accommodation pilot’s specific assertions on SSDI application that “she could not sit for extended periods of time and would enable him to work at his old position, that her back problems made her ‘totally despite those impairments. He therefore suf- unpredictable’ were properly considered in ficiently explained any factual inconsistencies determining that she could not fly a helicopter or to survive either summary judgment or j.m.l. obtain a valid airmen’s certificate,” and bare assertions that plaintiff spoke little English and that SSDI application failed to anticipate reasonable accommodation were insufficient to survive sum- mary judgment) and Feldman, 196 F.3d at 791-92 (concluding that plaintiff’s utter failure to explain 15 See Feldman, 196 F.3d at 792 (“Unlike the why sworn statement that she was “completely and plaintiff in Cleveland, Feldman failed to offer any totally disabled” on SSDI application was not explanation for the contradiction between her SSDI inconsistent with her asserted status as a qualified and ADA statements.”) individual rendered summary judgment 16 appropriate). Because Giles’s explanations The one assertion on Giles’s SSDI encompass both his SSDI application and his other application that might preclude a jury from finding benefit applications, we do not reach the issue of that he could perform his prior job with reasonable whether any unexplained inconsistencies between accommodation is the statement that he has chronic the unsworn statements in those applications and pain and cannot walk or stand long. A reasonable his assertions in this litigation might properly form jury, however, could believe Giles’s contention that the basis for summary judgment on this issue. he did not make those assertions. 8 B. Under the ADA, “‘qualified individual with GE argues that, apart from the issues of es- a disability’ means an individual with a toppel and factual inconsistency, the district disability who, with or without reasonable ac- court should have found as a matter of law commodation, can perform the essential func- that Giles could not have performed his job tions of the employment position that such even with reasonable accommodation, individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. negating Giles’s status as a “qualified § 12111(8). In determining what constitutes individual” under the ADA. With respect to the essential functions of a position, this issue, GE’s rule 50(b) violations cannot be “consideration shall be given to the employer’s considered de minimis. judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a Although GE called only one witness as written description before advertising or part of its case in chief, that witness testified interviewing applicants for the job, this extensively regarding the nature of the Class A description shall be considered evidence of the Machinist position, whether a person with essential functions of the job.” Id. Giles’s disabilities would be able to perform the duties required, and whether any GE contends that Giles cannot bend, climb, accommodation would be feasible. GE relies or lift to the degree required by the Machinist heavily on the testimony of that witness in its Class A position, and it introduced testimony post-judgment motion for j.m.l. and on appeal. indicating that those skills are essential to the In light of the close nexus between the issue position. Nonetheless, Giles produced a pub- on which GE sought j.m.l. and the extensive lished list of “Job Classifications and Descrip- testimony of its lone witness, to entertain GE’s tions” from GE’s Dallas Service Center that post-judgment motion on this issue despite included a description of the Machinist Class A GE’s failure to comply with rule 50(b) would position: unfairly surprise Giles and thereby would thwart one of the purposes of rule 50(b). See Performs miscellaneous operations in- Bohrer v. Hanes Corp., 715 F.2d 213, 216 volving broad machine shop experience. (5th Cir. 1983). Consequently, we cannot ex- Operates all types of machine tools, in- cuse GE’s failure to follow the procedures volving close tolerance work, intricate outlined by the rule, so GE waived its motion setups and development. Dismantles, for j.m.l. with respect to this issue. assembles, diagnoses and corrects mechanical trouble on electrical and Thus, we review only for plain error the mechanical equipment such as turbines, verdict with respect to whether Giles is a qual- motors, generators, transformers, etc. ified individual under the ADA. Under that Machines or builds parts from samples standard, “our inquiry is limited to whether or drawings. Performs related duties as there was any evidence to support the jury’s assigned. May direct others. verdict, irrespective of its sufficiency, or whether plain error was committed which, if Though the description “does not purport not noticed, would result in a manifest to be all-inclusive or exhaustive of the actual miscarriage of justice.” Coughlin, 571 F.2d at requirements of [the] job,” it nowhere 297 (internal quotation marks omitted). indicates that climbing, bending, or lifting is 9 essential. The description may not be the issue.17 By failing to raise the issue at any time bestSSor even sufficientSSevidence of the es- before its post-judgment motion, GE waived sential requirements of the Machinist Class A it, so we refuse to consider it now.18 position to survive under a more stringent standard of review, but it does provide, under IV. § 12111(8), some evidence supporting the A. verdict. The jury awarded $400,000 as compensatory damages and $800,000 as Furthermore, Giles introduced evidence punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § that Milani’s final determination finding him 1981a, which authorizes compensatory and unable to return to work as a Class A punitive damages for discrimination under the MachinistSSa determination that apparently ADA.19 The court limited the damages to influenced GE’s decision not to rehire $300,000 under the limitation provisions of 42 GilesSSwas based on an incorrect job U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) and characterized the description pro vided to Milani by GE. This entire award, so limited, as compensatory.20 discrepancy ameliorates GE’s assertion that GE argues that the award is unsupported by medical experts determined that Giles could not perform the essential elements of the Class A Machinist position. Finally, the SSA’s 17 In its April 1999 summary judgment order, determination that Giles’s disability “does not the court noted that “Defendant does not dispute prevent [him] from performing [his] previous that Plaintiff, who injured his back while working job as machinist as it is generally performed” is for the Defendant in Mexico and has undergone additional evidence supporting the verdict. back surgery and rehabilitation due to this injury, We cannot conclude that there was no is in fact disabled for purposes of the ADA.” evidence produced to support the verdict; the Moreover, the joint pretrial order fails to mention, jury was no t plainly erroneous in finding that either as a defense or as a contested issue of law, Giles’s alleged lack of disability for purposes of the Giles was a qualified individual under the ADA. ADA. 18 See Portis v. First Nat’l Bank, 34 F.3d 325, C. 331-32 (5th Cir. 1994). (holding that an issue not In addition to arguing that Giles is not a raised in the district court will not be reviewed on “qualified individual,” GE contends that he appeal, and determining that “[a] party has failed to establish another element of his prima presented an issue in the trial court if that party has facie case under the ADA; namely, that he raised it in either the pleadings or the pretrial order, possessed a disability as defined by that or if the parties have tried the issue by consent.”). statute. In denying GE’s post-judgment 19 motion on the issue, the district court Tracking the language of § 1981a(b)(3), the charge defined compensatory damages to include notedSSand GE does not disputeSSthat, before “emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, men- filing its post-judgment motion, GE never tal anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other raised the issue of whether Giles was disabled non-pecuniary losses.” and, in fact, previously had conceded the 20 Giles contends that the court improperly ap- plied the statutory cap. We consider that in part V.A, infra. 10 competent evidence of actual injury. considerably on the demeanor of witnesses.”23 Nonetheless, to merit any award greater than The capped amount for a damage award nominal damages, emotional distress damages under §1981a is $300,000. When deciding must “be supported by competent evidence whether a jury award is excessive, we consider concerning the injury.”24 the amount of the award after application of the statutory cap, not the amount given by the There are two requirements to prove jury. See Vadie v. Miss. State Univ., 218 F.3d emotional distress, the first of which is 365, 375-76 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 specificity with respect to the alleged injury: S. Ct. 859 (2001), and cert. denied, 2001 U.S. “[T]here must be a specific discernable injury LEXIS 1197 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2001) (No. 00- to the claimant’s emotional state, proven with 1007). evidence regarding the nature and extent of the harm . . . . [H]urt feelings, anger and In limiting Giles’ damages to $300,000, the frustration are part of life . . . and [are] not the district court characterized those damages as types of harm that could support a mental solely compensatory. Without passing on anguish award.” Id. Damages for emotional whether it is appropriate in every case to char- distress may be appropriate, however, where acterize limited damages as purely “the plaintiff suffers sleeplessness, anxiety, compensatory,21 we note that the lack of stress, marital problems, and humiliation.” evidence of malice or reckless indifference on Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, the part of GE justifies that delineation here.22 1047 (5th Cir. 1998). We thus consider whether Giles produced sufficient evidence to support a $300,000 Second, we require more than vague compensatory judgment. allegations to establish existence of the injury. Because “‘emotional distress [is] fraught with We review with deference damage awards vagueness and speculation, [and] is easily sus- based on intangible harm, because “the harm is ceptible to fictitious and trivial claims,’ we subjective and evaluating it depends must ‘scrupulously analyze an award of compensatory damages for a claim of emotional distress predicated exclusively on the plaintiff’s testimony.’” Brady, 145 F.3d at 21 See Quint v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 172 F.3d 1, 13-14 & n.9 (1st Cir. 1999), petition for cert. 23 filed (June 21, 1999) (No. 98-9984) (refusing, in Patterson v. P.H.P. Healthcare Corp., 90 the face of substantial evidence supporting punitive F.3d 927, 937-38 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting damages, to accept the district court’s 1 HENRY H. PERRITT, JR., CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE characterization of the limited award as purely WORKPLACE § 4.6, at 245 (2d ed. 1995)). compensatory because “by its terms . . . section 24 1981a(b)(3) neither contemplates nor requires such Brady v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d 691, a characterization.”). 718 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 264 n.20 (1978)). We use “emotional 22 A punitive award is justified only if the distress” to refer to Giles’s emotional pain and defendant acted “with malice or with reckless suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of indifference to the federally protected rights” of the life, to the extent that those injuries formed the plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). basis for the compensatory award. 11 719. (quoting Price v. City of Charlotte, 93 the plaintiff chooses not to accept the remitted F.3d 1241, 1250, 1251 (4th Cir. 1996)). award, a new trial on the issue of damages Importantly, however, “we do not now hold, alone. See id. To determine the size of the re- nor have we ever held, that a plaintiff may mittitur, we follow the “maximum recovery never prove mental anguish damages with his rule,” reducing the damages to the maximum own testimony alone. In certain cases a amount a reasonable jury could have awarded. plaintiff’s testimony alone may be sufficient See Dixon v. Int’l Harvester Co., 754 F.2d proof of mental damages.” Id. at 720.25 573, 590 (5th Cir. 1985). “Of course, our re- assessment of damages cannot be supported Giles relies primarily on his own testimony entirely by rational analysis, but involves an to support his contention of emotional distress, inherently subjective component.” Eiland, 58 although he also cites the testimony of a co- F.3d at 183. worker, Mike Joyner. Giles testified that he has had trouble sleeping, suffered headaches The symptoms of which Giles complains and marital difficulties, and lost the prestige do not support an award of $300,000. In and social connections associated with his Forsyth v. City of Dallas, 91 F.3d 769, 774 position at GE and his service as treasurer of (5th Cir. 1996), we concluded that a jury the local union. Joyner testified that Giles reasonably had awarded $100,000 for appeared “despondent, depressed, down and emotional distress symptoms quite similar to absolutely utterly discouraged about not being Giles’s.26 In our view, that amount properly able to come back to work.” This testimony would compensate Giles for his emotional dis- is specific enough to allow a jury to award tress. To avoid substituting our judgment for compensatory damages. that of the jury, however, we augment that amount by fifty percent to reach a maximum We cannot say, however, that Giles is recovery. See Dixon, 754 F.2d at 590 (citing entitled to the full $300,000. “There is a Caldarera v. E. Airlines, Inc., 705 F.2d 778, strong presumption in favor of affirming a jury 784-85 (5th Cir. 1983)). We therefore reduce award of damages. The damage award may be Giles’ compensatory award to $150,000, with overturned only upon a clear showing of the option of a new trial if he chooses not to excessiveness . . . . However, when this court accept the remittitur. is left with the perception that the verdict is clearly excessive, deference must be abandoned.” Eiland v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 58 F.3d 176, 183 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 26 Forsyth upheld emotional distress damages of $100,000 to one plaintiff based on her testimony In such a case, we grant a remittitur, or if that “she suffered depression, weight loss, intestinal troubles, and marital problems, that she had been sent home from work because of her 25 See also Migis, 135 F.3d at 1047 (noting that depression, and that she had to consult a an award for emotional distress “does not always psychologist,” and emotional distress damages of require that the plaintiff offer medical evidence or $75,000 to a second plaintiff who “testified that he corroborating testimony in addition to her own suffered depression, sleeplessness, and marital testimony”). problems.” 91 F.3d at 774. 12 B. Giles had failed to mitigate his future damages. The district court awarded front pay of The court therefore “decided to exercise its $141,110.27 GE argues Giles failed to mitigate equitable discretion and award Plaintiff front his damages by seeking further employment pay in an effort to make him whole.” and that the court erred in awarding front pay in light of this failure. We review front pay for The court did not abuse its discretion. The abuse of discretion. See Rutherford v. Harris only evidence cited by GE to show that Giles County, 197 F.3d 173, 188 (5th Cir. 1999). failed to mitigate his future damages is the fact that he accepted employment as a park In exercising that discretion, the district attendant and a finding by the Texas Workers’ court must consider whether an award of front Compensation Commission that he had “not pay is reasonable under the facts of the case; made a good faith effort to obtain employment because front pay is an equitable remedy em- equal to [his] ability to work” and suspended ployed to account for future lost earnings, the his workers’ compensation benefit for that rea- award “should reflect earnings in mitigation of son. Giles challenged the commission’s find- damages.” Patterson, 90 F.3d at 937 n.8. Ac- ing and, after a hearing, persuaded that agency cordingly, district courts “must consider [a that the benefits should not have been sus- plaintiff’s] failure to mitigate . . . damages in pended because, in fact, he had diligently determining the extent to which, if at all, front sought work. Moreover, although Giles is un- pay is appropriate.” Hansard v. Pepsi-Cola able to detail specifically how he conducted his Metro. Bottling Co., 865 F.2d 1461, 1470 (5th job search, he attributes that shortcoming to a Cir. 1989). lack of adequate record-keeping, not of effort. In support of its argument that Giles failed to mitigate, GE cites primarily the refusal to Ultimately, this evidence is inconclusive. award back pay, contending that the finding of Though the evidence of Giles’s failure to mit- failure to mitigate damages in that context re- igate may have been sufficient to allow the quires a similar finding with respect to front court to deny front pay, it was insufficient to pay. The court considered that argument, require it to do so.28 however, and concluded that, notwithstanding Giles’s failure to mitigate back pay damages, 28 GE had not met its burden of proving that Perhaps a thornier issue is whether front pay is subject to the statutory cap embodied by § 1981a(b)(3), which limits “compensatory dam- ages,” including, inter alia, “future pecuniary 27 “Front pay is awarded to compensate the losses.” Although the issue appears undecided in plaintiff for lost future wages and benefits.” Shir- this circuit, the majority of circuits to confront it ley v. Chrysler First, Inc., 970 F.2d 39, 44 (5th have concluded that front pay should not be limited Cir. 1992). Reinstatement generally is preferable by § 1981a(b)(3) because, as an alternative to to an award of front pay, and we customarily re- reinstatement, it is equitable in nature and therefore quire the district court to articulate its reasons for falls outside the statutory limitation of “com- finding reinstatement infeasible and awarding front pensatory damages.” Compare Pals v. Shepel Bu- pay in lieu of reinstatement. See Weaver v. Amoco ick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 499-500 Prod. Co., 66 F.3d 85, 88-89 (5th Cir. 1995). GE (7th Cir. 2000) (holding front pay exempt from concedes that reinstatement is not feasible. (continued...) 13 C. Miller, 818 F.2d 1227, 1232 (5th Cir. 1987). After a hearing, the court awarded “The ‘district court’s Johnson analysis . . . attorneys’ fees of $150,837. Pursuant to 42 need not be meticulously detailed to survive U.S.C. § 1988(b), courts may award fees to appellate review’, but it must articulate and prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights actions. We clearly apply the Johnson criteria.” Riley, 99 review an award for abuse of discretion and F.3d at 760 (quoting Louisiana Power & Light any factual findings supporting the award for Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 331 (5th Cir. clear error. See Riley v. City of Jackson, 99 1995)). F.3d 757, 759 (5th Cir. 1996). In exercising that discretion, however, the district court GE complains that the court abused its must heed the twelve-factor analysis of discretion and that the award was excessive, Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 because Giles employed five lawyers, took no F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).29 See Cobb v. depositions, made no court appearances before trial, and argued no novel issues. We disagree. The court considered the Johnson factors 28 (...continued) carefully in determining the appropriate fee cap); EEOC v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 618 & award. n.10 (11th Cir. 2000) (same); Gotthardt v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 191 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 Specifically, the court found that Giles’s (9th Cir. 1999) (same); Martini v. Fed. Nat’l attorneys’ lodestar value accurately reflected Mortgage Ass’n, 178 F.3d 1336, 1348-49 (D.C. the complexity and novelty of the case;30 Cir. 1999) (same), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1155 moreover, the court found that the ability and (2000); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d reputation of Giles’s attorneys was accurately 545, 556 (10th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813 (1999); Kramer v. Logan County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 620, 626 (8th Cir. 1998) (same), with 29 Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 213 (...continued) F.3d 933, 945 (6th Cir. 2000) (reasoning that front customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed pay is compensatory in nature and therefore subject or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed to the cap), cert. granted, 121 S. Ct. 756 (2001); by the client or the circumstances, (8) the Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193, 1202-03 (6th Cir. amount involved and the results obtained, 1997) (same). Like the majority of circuits, we (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of regard front pay as an equitable remedy, see the attorneys, (10) the undesirability of the Walther v. Lone Star Gas Co., 952 F.2d 119, 127 case, (11) the nature and length of the (5th Cir. 1992). By failing to argue that the professional relationship with the client, and limitation applies, however, GE has waived the (12) awards in similar cases. Strong v. issue on appeal, so we do not decide it. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 137 F.3d 844, 850 n.4 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Johnson, 29 As we recently reiterated, 488 F.2d at 717-19). 30 [t]he twelve Johnson factors are: (1) the The lodestar value is the number of hours time and labor required, (2) the novelty and worked by Giles’s attorneys multiplied by their difficulty of the issues, (3) the skill required respective rates. It serves as the base value for any to perform the legal services properly, (4) fee award, subject to enhancement or reduction the preclusion of other employment, (5) the based on the Johnson factors. See Riley, 99 F.3d (continued...) at 760. 14 reflected in their customary billing rates and Act of Texas, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. that the result obtainedSSa successful 4590i. There, we analyzed several factors in judgment of over $1,000,000, reduced to over determining that the statutory limitation $400,000 by the statutory capSSjustified the functioned as an affirmative defense that must lodestar value.31 Finally, finding some of be pleaded under FED. R. CIV. P. 8(c). Giles’s attorneys’ fees unreasonable, the court reduced their hours and rates. We need not reach the issue of whether the statutory cap of § 1981a(b)(3) must be plead- Although GE complains about the number ed as an affirmative defense under Ingraham,32 of attorneys employed by Giles, it does not because even assuming the cap is an take issue with any of the court’s Johnson affirmative defense, GE’s failure to plead the analysis. We cannot conclude that the court cap did not waive the defense in this case. Al- abused its discretion in determining the fee though failure to raise an affirmative defense award. under rule 8(c) in a party’s first responsive pleading “generally results in a waiver. . . . , V. [w]here the matter is raised in the trial court in A. a manner that does not result in unfair surprise In his cross-appeal, Giles contends that the . . . technical failure to comply precisely with statutory limitation of § 1981a(b)(3) does not Rule 8(c) is not fatal.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. apply to the damages in this case, arguing that Mackay, 695 F.2d 854, 855-56 (5th Cir. the limitation is an affirmative defense; because 1983). Thus, a defendant does not waive an GE failed to plead that defense, it waived its affirmative defense if he “raised the issue at a right to argue for limitation of the judgment pragmatically sufficient time, and [the plaintiff] after trial. Giles can marshal no authority was not prejudiced in its ability to respond.” directly supporting his assertion, so he argues Id. at 856. by analogy from Ingraham v. United States, 808 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1987), in which we considered the statutory limitation of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement 32 The only court to have addressed the issue of whether the limitation provision of § 1981a(b)(3) functions as an affirmative defense reasoned per- 31 The district court correctly focused on the suasively that it does not; instead, the court opined, weightier factors in the Johnson analysis, with em- the § 1981a cap is an integral part of the statutory phasis on the most important factor, the result scheme under which the plaintiff sought obtained. See Migis, 135 F.3d at 1047 (noting damagesSSthus, a plaintiff cannot have suffered that, in conducting a Johnson analysis, a “court unfair surprise in the invocation of the cap, so the should give special heed to the time and labor cap should not be waivable as a defense. See involved, the customary fee, the amount involved Oliver v. Cole Gift Ctrs., Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 109, and the result obtained, and the experience, 111-12 (D. Conn. 2000) (distinguishing Ingraham reputation and ability of counsel,” and emphasizing as one of a number of cases in which “[t]he courts that “[t]he Supreme Court has twice made clear . . . held that the caps were affirmative defenses in that ‘the most critical factor’ in determining the order to prevent unfair surprise because the caps reasonableness of a fee award in a civil rights suit were not evident on the face of the statutory ‘is the degree of success obtained’” (quoting schemes under which the plaintiffs had brought Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992)). their claims.”) 15 GE asserted the defense as a contested is- identical to that in § 1981a(b)(3). See TEX. sue of law in the joint pretrial order, and the LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.2585. The similarity is court held a hearing on the issue before trial. unsurprising, given the Texas Legislature’s Under these circumstances, Giles could not goal of “provid[ing] for the execution of the have been unfairly surprised by the statutory policies embodied in Title I of the Americans limitation. The court therefore properly with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its allowed GE to use the cap as a defense despite subsequent amendments.” Id. § 21.001(3). In GE’s failure to follow the strictures of rule the face of the similarities in the two statutory 8(c). caps and the legislature’s practice of replicating the federal scheme, the legislative B. policy would be better served by viewing the Giles contends that the court should have two caps as coextensive, not cumulative. The “reallocated” into his claim under the Texas court did not err in limiting Giles’s Human Rights Act those damages in excess of compensatory damage award to $300,000 the federal statutory cap. We disagree. pursuant to § 1981a(b)(3). The sole case relied on by Giles, Martini v. C. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 178 F.3d 1336 Giles argues that the court erred in denying (D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. his request for back pay. Like front pay, back 1147 (2000), involved coextensive claims un- pay is an equitable remedy, the award of which der both federal law and a District of Columbia we review for abuse of discretion.33 Because law. The federal claim was subject to the it is an equitable remedy, back pay is subject to limitations of § 1981a(b)(3), but the analogous a duty to mitigate damages. See Deffenbaugh- claim under District of Columbia law carried Williams, 156 F.3d at 590. no such limitation. The jury had received no instruction on apportioning the damages be- The court surveyed the evidence of Giles’s tween the two claims, and the court of appeals attempts to mitigate his damages and held that the district court had improperly lim- concluded that he had failed to mitigate his ited the damages, because there was no basis damages with respect to the back pay award, for determining how the jury had apportioned based in particular on the fact that he could the award. See id. at 1347-50. Further, the document very little of his asserted job search. court of appeals reasoned, “[w]ere we not to Although Giles produced sufficient evidence to treat damages under federal and local law as allow front pay, he failed to produce enough fungible where the standards of liability are the evidence to compel the court to award back same, we would effectively limit the local jurisdiction’s prerogative to provide greater remedies for employment discrimination than those Congress has afforded under Title VII.” Id. at 1350. 33 See Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 156 F.3d 581, 590 (5th Cir. 1998), This case is distinct from Martini in that vacated for rehearing en banc, 169 F.3d 215 (5th the state law undergirding Giles’s claim Cir.), reinstated in part, 182 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. contains a damages limitation provision 1999) (per curiam) (en banc); Hadley v. VAM P.T.S., 44 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 1995). 16 pay.34 The district court’s decision to deny affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to back pay is therefore within its sound interrogatories, and admissions on file, discretion. designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at D. 524 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court granted summary judgment for GE on Giles’s workers’ compensation Giles contends that the court improperly retaliation claim. Giles contends the court granted summary judgment on his workers’ should have allowed the claim to proceed to compensation claim, because GE never moved trial. We review a summary judgment de for summary judgment on that issue. The rec- novo, applying the same standard as did the ord reflects, however, that GE did seek district court, so we view all disputed facts in summary judgment on “all claims and causes the light most favorable to the non-moving of action asserted by . . . Giles . . . ” and party. See Waymire v. Harris County, 86 F.3d argued that “there is no evidence that . . . GE 424, 427 (5th Cir. 1996). took or refrained from any action based on Giles’s workers’ compensation claim for To survive a motion for summary benefits.” To the extent that Giles’s retaliation judgment, the non-moving party must present claim fell outside the language of GE’s motion, sufficient evidence to support the elements of it did so because, as the district court noted, its prima facie case. See Celotex Corp. v. Ca- “no citation was made to the relevant statutory trett, 477 U.S. 317, 321-23 (1986). “Conclu- provision in either the Plaintiff’s First sory allegations unsupported by specific facts Amended Complaint . . . or the Plaintiff’s . . . will not prevent an award of summary Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment; ‘the plaintiff [can]not rest on his Judgment.”35 allegations . . . to get to a jury without any significant probative evidence tending to sup- The court granted summary judgment on port the complaint.” Nat’l Ass’n of Gov. the workers’ compensation retaliation claim Employees v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 40 F.3d because Giles failed to produce summary judg- 698, 713 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson v. ment evidence establishing the nexus between Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 the filing of his workers’ compensation claim (1986)) (modifications in original). Instead, and his termination. Giles apparently concedes “Rule 56(e) . . . requires the nonmoving party that his response failed to “designate specific to go beyond the pleadings and by her own facts showing that there [was] a genuine issue for trial,” as required by Celotex, but instead argues that GE’s summary judgment motion 34 provided insufficient notice for him properly to Although it may seem anomalous that the respond before summary judgment was grant- district court can view the same evidence and reach opposing conclusionsSSthat front pay is ap- propriate while back pay is notSSthat court’s 35 discretion allows for such conclusions in the in- Giles’s first amended complaint merely al- terest of equity. Such a result is the functional leged that he “was subject to adverse actions as equivalent of a reduction in both front pay and prohibited by anti-retaliation laws because . . . he back pay, another action well within the court’s . . . was injured on the job and filed workers’ discretion. compensation claims.” 17 ed. E. In awarding damages, the court offset, Giles unsuccessfully moved for from the front pay award, an amount equal to reconsideration, asserting the same argument the sum of the LTD and disability pension before the district court. Because Giles filed benefits Giles had already received from GE. his motion for reconsideration within ten days Giles argues that this is error, because GE of the original summary judgment order, we failed to plead the offset as an affirmative de- treat the motion for reconsideration as a fense under rule 8(c). GE concedes that it motion to amend the judgment under FED. R. failed to assert the affirmative defense36 but CIV. P. 59(e). See Trust Co. Bank v. United argues that this should be excused. As we States Gypsum Co., 950 F.2d 1144, 1147 (5th have said, a court may excuse a violation of Cir. 1992). We review such a motion for rule 8(c) in the absence of prejudice to the abuse of discretion. See Midland W. Corp. v. other party. FDIC, 911 F.2d 1141, 1145 (5th Cir. 1990). On appeal, Giles alleges no prejudice other Dealing first with the summary judgment, than the assertion that his expert was we agree with the district court that Giles did “ambushed” by GE’s questioning about not carry his burden under Celotex. By failing benefits at trial. Giles was not unfairly specifically to set forth facts that could present prejudiced by the defense, however, because a triable issue, he neglected to support his the parties each addressed t he issue before claim sufficiently to survive summary trial. judgment. To the extent that he asks us to revisit the summary judgment because GE’s Giles raised the issue in a motion in limine motion did not provide him with proper notice, and proceeded to object on the merits to sev- we treat that as an appeal of the motion to eral of GE's trial exhibits before trial. GE filed reconsider, because the court addressed that a brief before trial addressing Giles’s argument in refusing to reconsider its summary objections and indicating its intention to seek judgment. an offset: “According to Giles, because these payments fall under the collateral source rule, Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion in they cannot be introduced at trial nor can they the decision not to amend the summary offset his recovery. . . . [T]he collateral source judgment. Given the imprecision with which rule does not apply.” Giles’s motion in limine Giles framed his retaliation claim in the amend- and GE’s pretrial assertion belie his asserted ed complaint, GE’s summary judgment motion prejudice. The court was well within its dis- sufficiently referenced that claim when cretion to consider GE’s affirmative defense of asserting that it had taken no action in offset, notwithstanding GE’s failure properly retaliation to the filing of the compensation claim. 36 Our caselaw supports Giles’s contention that GE cannot be expected to anticipate the an offset indeed is an affirmative defense. See basis for Giles’s claim. We therefore affirm Rosenberg v. Trautwein, 624 F.2d 666, 670 (5th the summary judgment on the workers’ Cir. 1980) (noting in passing “the general rule that compensation retaliation claim. an offset is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded”). 18 to plead the defense. The collateral source rule would do exactly thatSSGE is already obligated to pay Giles’s Giles takes issue with the merits of the disability pension and LTD benefits to decision to offset the recovery. Because the compensate for his inability to work in the decision to award front pay is within the dis- future. Failure to set those amounts off cretion of the district court, so also we review against his front pay awardSSwhich is designed the decision to offset that award for abuse of to accomplish the same purposeSSwould discretion. The district court acted well within overcompensate Giles. Accordingly, the court that discretion. acted within its discretion in setting off the benefits from the front pay award. Giles baldly asserts that the collateral source rule bars setting off the benefits against VI. the front pay award.37 Giles cites Davis for In conclusion, the jury’s compensatory the proposition that “when an employee has award is excessive, even as limited by § 1981a- bargained for a fringe benefit as additional (b)(3). We therefore offer the plaintiff a consideration for employment, compensation remittitur of $150,000 in compensatory dam- received by the employee under that fringe ages or a new trial on compensatory damages benefit should not be deducted from damages alone. In all other respects, we affirm the awarded to the employee,” 18 F.3d at 1244. judgment. Giles fails, however, to explain how that pro- position might apply to this case. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Plainly, the benefits used to offset the front pay were not additional, bargained-for compensation but were instead compensation for the injury out of which this case arises. In seeking to apply Davis’s language to the facts of this case, Giles misapprehends one of the central tenets of Davis: “Properly interpreted . . ., the collateral source rule . . . prevents tortfeasors from paying twice for the same injurySSa result that would achieve both over- deterrence and overcompensation. Id. at 1244 n.21. 37 “The collateral source rule is a substantive rule of law that bars a tortfeasor from reducing the quantum of damages owed to a plaintiff by the amount of recovery the plaintiff receives from other sources of compensation that are independent of (or collateral to) the tortfeasor.” Davis v. Odeco, Inc., 18 F.3d 1237, 1243 (5th Cir. 1994) 19