WPC'J Wɍu1!zVcFB L=|J.|T+z-I;< kHGs,įw}fЍ܌ߝxiT;;j<b=#=-pұ:z1Z|rzjPf|%z^4Ϣ{O#Q?)Y9r@eS P"h"`Efw 9질 i|~&tb fFq$+3W>UOpa5 ۗ2&A,D=, U#6M)#$6s˒_l>fŨ-tG1mLCN:X8\x1By>W *vQN-Ƈy*~ai!ˆںCʄ5Y# % 0D 0GU:0 0j UM8 nTJ N UN U;F ^ 4 w@ 4D X g Ei fk am m UB b U>  j6x"2"}J%&*,C1K1K1 Ba2a2~2:_<<=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=AIHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2#$ !XXTXXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular}k0s v0?,}backup3|x TABLE AU<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular  #$XSLXXX      1    _JohnsonalsosuedSpencerPress,Inc.,theparentcorporation  ofSpencerPressofMaine,Inc. Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummary  judgmenttoSpencerPress,Inc.,andJohnsonhasnotappealedthat \ decision. AllreferencesinthisopiniontoSpencerPressreferto 2 SpencerPressofMaine. ` #$XSLXXX      13    _Wedonotsuggestthatajuryisrequiredtoextendthe  periodofbackpayunderthecircumstances,butonlythatthereis  noruleoflawprecludingitfromdoingso.  , ' Turner0Turner .    n #$XSLXXX      4    _SpencerPressarguesinitsopeningbriefthatitisalso  appealingthedistrictcourt'srefusaltograntjudgmentasa  matteroflaw,andthatthisholdingshouldberevieweddenovo.  \ Butafterthejuryreacheditsverdict,SpencerPressfiledonlya 2 motionforanewtrialunderRule59,andnotforajudgmentasa X matteroflawunderRule50(b). Accordingly,SpencerPresshas . waiveditsearliermotionforjudgmentasamatteroflawandis   notentitledtoappellatereviewontheissue.SeeCambridge   PlatingCo.v.Napco,Inc.,85F.3d752,759(1stCir.1996); `  Pinkhamv.Burgess,933F.2d1066,1070(1stCir.1991).Evenso, 6   weobservethatanobjectivelyreasonablejurycouldeasilyhave  \  reachedtheresulthere.  #$XSLXXX      5    _Riveraupheldanawardofsummaryjudgmenttotheemployeron  denovoreview.331F.3dat185.HadSpencerPressmovedfor  judgmentasamatteroflawunderRule50,thesamestandardof \ reviewwouldapply.SeeReevesv.SandersonPlumbingProds.Inc., 2 530U.S.133,150(2000).Here,bycontrast,thedenialofSpencer X Press'smotionforanewtrialunderRule59mustmeetthemore . difficultstandardofabuseofdiscretion.Seesupra. u #$XSLXXX      2    _Johnsonalsoallegedthathehadbeenthevictimofunlawful  discriminationonthebasisofadisabilityandthathehadbeen  unlawfullyretaliatedagainstforinvokinghisrights. The \ districtcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoSpencerPressonthe 2 disabilitydiscriminationclaim,andJohnsondoesnotappealthat X determination. Thedistrictcourtdidnotgrantsummaryjudgment . toSpencerPressontheretaliationclaim,but,basedonthejury's   verdict,judgmentwasenteredagainstJohnsononthisclaimand   Johnsonalsodoesnotappealthisdetermination.   #$XSLXXX      9    _Thedistrictcourt'sinitialrulingonthisissuewasthat  "thevalueoftheHannafordwagesandbenefits,whateveritis,can  betreatedasanongoingoffsettoJohnson'slossresultingfrom \ leaving[SpencerPress]." ThisholdingwouldhaveentitledJohnson 2 toreceivethedifferentialbetweenhiswagesatHannafordand X SpencerPressnotonlyfortheperiodhewasemployedatHannaford . fromMay2toDecember8,2000(the$1,227.94),butalsoforthe   periodafterDecember8,2000.Aftertrial,thedistrictcourt   altereditsdecision,holdingthatbackpaywasonlyavailable"for `  thetimeduringwhichtheplaintiffwasemployedat_Hannaford_ 6   Bros."   #$XSLXXX      10    _Thedistrictcourt,inlightofitsrulingonthe  availabilityoffrontpay,grantedSpencerPress'smotioninlimine  toexcludeanexpertwitnesswhowouldpresentastatisticalmodel \ predictingJohnson'slostfrontpay. Becauseweultimately 2 concludethatJohnsonwasnotentitledtofrontorbackpaybeyond X December8,2000,weaffirmthedistrictcourt'srefusalto . considertheexperttestimonyofferedtoprovetheeconomic   consequencesofJohnson'sterminationfromHannaford. s #$XSLXXX      8    _Thereissomedispute,whichneednotconcernus,asto  whetherajuryshouldmakecalculations,ifdisputed,forpurposes  oftheaward.SeeLindemann&Grossman,at64041.  #$XSLXXX      12    _Thedistrictcourt'sfailuretoaddressJohnson'sargument  thatSpencerPresswasresponsibleforhistotaldisabilityis  attributabletothecourt'sbeliefthattheissuewasirrelevant \ becauseJohnson'sterminationfrom_Hannaford_Ԁwasdispositiveofthe 2 issue.Afterall,Johnsonfiledamotionforreconsiderationthat X specificallyclaimedthatthedistrictcourthadneglectedSpencer . Press'sresponsibilityforhisultimatedisability,andthe   districtcourtdenieditwithoutcomment.Intheend,however,the   reasonforthedistrictcourt'serrorisnotrelevanttothe `  analysis;allthatispertinentisthattheerrorwasmade.  #$XSLXXX      7    _However,"[w]hereonlyreinstatementandbackpayare  requestedoriftheyaretheonlyissues,inadditiontoliability,  remaininginthecasethenbothreinstatementandbackpayshallbe \ forthecourt."SantiagoNegron,865F.2dat441.  #$XSLXXX      14    _Thisissueisdifferentfromtheissueofcuttingoffback  andfrontpaywhenthereisafteracquiredevidenceofwrongdoing  thatwouldhaveresultedintheemployee'sdischargefromemployer \ A.Insuchcases,theSupremeCourthasheldthatbothfrontand 2 backpayareindeedcutoffatthetimethatthedefendant X discoversevidencethatwouldhaveledittofiretheplaintiffon . legitimategrounds.McKennonv.NashvilleBannerPubl'gCo.,513   U.S.352,36162(1995).Thatresultfollowsfromthesimple   guidingprinciplethattheemployeeshouldberestoredtothe `  positionheorshewouldhavebeeninabsentthediscrimination: 6   theemployeewouldhavebeenfiredregardlessofthediscrimination  \  asaresultofthemisconductatthedefendant'splaceof  2  employment.Seeid.at362.   #$XSLXXX      3    _Thepartieshavenotarguedthattherearematerial  differencesbetweenTitleVIIandtheMainestatute. d  #$XSLXXX      15    _Thereisasubissueaboutwhetherbackpay,offsetbydeemed  wagesfromemployerB,shouldcontinuewhiletheemployee  diligentlysearchesforpostemployerBemployment.Theviewof \ theFourthandFifthCircuitsisthatbackpayshouldequalzero 2 during"periodsofunemploymentfollowingjustifieddischarge" X because"[d]uringsuchaperiodtheclaimanthasexcludedhimself . fromtheemploymentmarket."Brady,753F.2dat1280;see   Pattersonv.P.H.P.HealthcareCorp.,90F.3d927,935(5thCir.   1996).Notably,though,thisperspectiveisinoppositiontothe `  NLRB'sruleinKnickerbocker,whichwouldleaveabackpayaward <   unchangedafteranemployeehadbeenfiredfromajobatwhichshe  b  wasmitigatingdamagesfromapriorunlawfultermination.See  8  Knickerbocker,132N.L.R.B.at1215.Italsoappearstobeatodds    withtheruleintheEighthCircuit.SeeNLRBv.HopcroftArt&  StainedGlassWorks,Inc.,692F.2d63,65(8thCir.1982)("[T]he  amounttheemployeewouldhaveearnedhadhenotquitistobe \ offsetfortheremainderofthebackpayperiod.").Leavingthe 2 backpayawardunchangedaftertheemployeeisfiredfrominterim X employment,thelogicgoes,wouldputtheemployeeintheposition . thathewouldhavebeeninhadheexercisedreasonablediligencein   neverbeingfired.  #$XSLXXX      16    _Yetanothersubissuethatwenoteinvolveshowtocalculate  thebackpayawardwhiletheplaintiffisemployedatemployerC.  ThisisparticularlydifficultwhenthesalaryatemployerBwas \ higherthanthesalaryatemployerC.TheBradycourtheldthat 2 thegreaterofthetwosalariesshouldbeusedforcalculatingback X paywhiletheemployeeisatemployerC.SeeBrady,753F.2dat . 127880.Wedonotreachthisissue. U #$XSLXXX      11    _Ifthisconclusionwasincorrect--aswethinkitwas--  thenaseriesofissuesnormallywouldariseabouthowtocalculate  backpayonceanemployeeisfiredfrominterimemploymentwhile \ attemptingtomitigatedamagesstemmingfromunlawful 2 discrimination.Onesuchissueiswhetherbackpayshouldbe X withheldfortheperiodduringwhichtheemployeeistryingtofind . anotherjob,orshouldremainatthelevelitwasatpriortothe   firing.Althoughwenotethisquestionbelow,weleaveit   unresolvedbecauseofaninterveningdispositivefact:Johnsonwas `  unabletofindemploymentafterbeingfiredfromHannafordbecause 6   hewastotallydisabledandhedidnotproducesufficientevidence  \  thatSpencerPresscausedthatdisability.  #$XSLXXX      17    _Whythisshouldbesoisnotselfevident.Iftheplaintiff  wouldhavebeenentitledtosomeformofsalarycontinuationor  benefitsfordisabilityhadheremainedemployedatthe \ discriminatoryemployer,itisnotclearwhyhewouldnotbe 2 entitledtotheequivalentifhebecamedisabledfromworkingpost X employmentandbeforetrial.Indeed,atleastonecircuithasheld . thatbackpayawardsshouldnotbecutoffduetoapost   terminationdisabilityiftheplaintiffwouldhavebeenentitledto   someformofsalarycontinuationordisabilitybenefitshadhenot `  beenunlawfullyterminated.Thornleyv.PentonPubl'g,Inc.,104 6   F.3d26,31(2dCir.1997).Thisreasoningissimplyalogical  \  outgrowthoftheprinciplethatbackpayshouldputtheplaintiff  2  inthepositionheorshewouldhavebeeninbutfortheunlawful   discrimination.Cf.Gutzwillerv.Fenik,860F.2d1317,1333(6th   Cir.1988)(backpay"shouldincludethesalary,includingany d  raises,whichplaintiffwouldhavereceivedbutforthe :  discrimination,aswellassickleave,vacationpay,pension `  benefitsandotherfringebenefitsshewouldhavereceivedbutfor 6 discrimination").     Johnsondoesnotraisethisissueherebecausehepresentsno  evidenceandmakesnoclaimthathewouldhavebeenentitledto h disabilitybenefitsatSpencerPresshadhenotbeenunlawfully > terminated.  #$XSLXXX      6    _Thisamountdidnotincludethedistrictcourt'sadditional  awardtoJohnsonof$1,227.94inbackpay. !XSLXXX  _=SLXXdd==SLXdXXd=TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! XBXXXSL jX XB     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  j  FortheFirstCircuit  `  XSLX `  A') ` dE< ` A      `     h Nos.031999,032069 K  @hh#ALBERTJOHNSON,  G  @| | Plaintiff,Appellee/CrossAppellant,   @tt)v. O  @ SPENCERPRESSOFMAINE,INC., K  @| | Defendant,Appellant/CrossAppellee,  A') ` dE<R` A S   SPENCERPRESS,INC., 8 Defendant. 4 A') ` dE<` A    @@ APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT u FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE K @ [Hon.D.BrockHornby,U.S.DistrictJudge] G A') ` dE<` A   @'Before "   @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge, 4!$ Cyr,SeniorCircuitJudge,  "Z% andHoward,CircuitJudge. "0& A') ` dE<a%` A b% )       U.Charles_Remmel_,II,withwhomJenniferA.ArcherandKelly, G&!+ _Remmel_Ԁ&Zimmermanwereonbrief,forappellant/crossappellee. 'm",   EricJ._Uhl_,withwhomMoon,Moss,McGill&Shapiro,P.A.was 'C#- onbrief,forappellee/crossappellant. ($. *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  K+&1K+&   SI+&2 @38092@S April16,2004 ,'4  RHC[-(5" @38092 @ R ," +&6 ? ,* !XSLXX XSL  8SLXXdd8*,X` XX* ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .ThesearecrossappealsinaTitle  VIIreligiousdiscriminationcase.# XSLXXXSL. #XSLXX XSLAjuryfoundSpencerPressof x MaineliablefortheharassmentofitsemployeeAlbertJohnsonon $t accountofhisreligionandawardedcompensatoryandpunitive   damages,respectively$400,000and$750,000,thesumofwhichwas |  reducedtothestatutorycapof$300,000.42U.S.C. ( x  1981a(b)(3)(D);Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.5,4613(2)(B)(8)(e)(iv).# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀ $  Johnsonwasrepeatedlyharassedoverthecourseofhisnineyear   employmentinSpencerPress'sjanitorialdepartmentbyhis ,|  supervisor,Steven_Halasz_.# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL (  ` SpencerPressappealsfromthedenialofitsnewtrial  motion,arguingthattheevidencedidnotshowthattheharassment 0 wasbecauseofJohnson'sreligionanddidnotshowthatitwas , severeandpervasive.SpencerPressalsochallengesthepunitive  damagesawardandthejuryinstructions.Werejectthese 4 contentionsandaffirm. 0  ` Johnsoncrossappealsthedistrictcourt'sholdingthat   hewasnotentitledtoanybackpayorfrontpayafterhewasfired 8!" fromhisnextjob,afterleavingSpencerPress,formisconduct.He "4$ alsoarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinrejectingthe $& contentionthathewasunabletogetasubsequentjobbecausehe <&!( waspsychologicallydisabled,andthatSpencerPressisresponsible '8#* forthisdisabilitybecauseitstemsfromtheharassmentheendured )$, whilehewasanemployeethere. @+&.  ` WeaffirmthelimitationonJohnson'sfrontpayandback  pay,butwedosoonalternativegrounds.Weholdthatitiserror \ tocutoff,asamatteroflaw,theabilityofasuccessfulTitle X VIIplaintifftoreceivefurtherbackpayorfrontpayonceheis   firedformisconductfromthepositionhetakesafterleavingthe `  discriminatoryemployer.Asaresult,wereachasecondissueon  \  whichJohnson'scrossappealultimatelyfails;Johnsonwasunable   toworkbecausehewastotallydisabledandtheevidencewas d  insufficienttosupportJohnson'sclaimthatthisdisabilitywas `  attributabletotheharassmentheenduredatSpencerPress.We   affirm. h   I.  d  ` OnApril3,2002,plaintiffAlbertJohnsonfiledsuit , againsthisformeremployer,SpencerPressofMaine,Inc., #  1        allegingthathehadbeendiscriminatedagainstandharassedonthe 4 basisof,interalia, #  2      # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀhisreligioninviolationofTitleVIIof 0 theCivilRightsActof1964("TitleVII"),42U.S.C.2000eet  seq.,andtheMaineHumanRightsAct,Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.5, \ 4551etseq.(West2002).% #  3      ׀ Thecomplaintsoughtallavailable X formsofrelief,includingcompensatoryandpunitivedamagesand   frontandbackpay. SpencerPresspromptlymovedforsummary `  judgmentontheseclaims.Thedistrictcourtdeniedthemotionsas  \  toJohnson'sunderlyingdiscriminationandharassmentclaimsandas   totheavailabilityofpunitivedamages,butheld,asamatterof d  law,thatJohnsonwasnotentitledtoanyfrontpayorbackpayfor `  anytimeafterDecember8,2000.Johnsonwasfiredformisconduct   onthatdatefrom_Hannaford_ԀBrothers,hisemployerimmediately h afterheleftSpencerPress.  d  ` ThecaseproceededtotrialbeforeajuryonApril28,  2003andlastedfourdays. Thetestimonypresentedattrial,which l isrecountedinthelightmostfavorabletoJohnson,_O'Rourke_v. h CityofProvidence,235F.3d713,717(1stCir.2001),established  thefollowingaccount. p   ` JohnsonreceivedaB.S.inBibleStudiesfromValley !l" ForgeChristianCollegein1978andservedasapastorattheBeech "$ RidgeAssemblyofGodChurchfromMay1979toOctober1981. In t$& 1981,Johnsonresignedfromhispositionatthechurchandfounda  &p!( newjobatthePaul_Dever_ԀStateSchoolforthementallyretarded, '#* whichhestayedinuntilJuly1990. Despiteleavinghisofficial  positionatthechurch,Johnsonremainedveryactiveinreligious \ activities.  X  ` InNovemberof1991,Johnsonbeganworkingasacustodian   atSpencerPress,aprintingcompany. AfterJohnsonstartedat `  SpencerPress,heexpressedtobothhissupervisoratthetimeand  \  hiscoworkersadesiretohaveSundaysofffromwork. Although   JohnsonhadtoworkmostSundays,hisfirstfewmonthsatSpencer d  Presswereincidentfree.  `   ` Stephen_Halasz_Ԁbecamethesupervisorofthecustodial   departmentatSpencerPressinMayof1992. Sometimeshortly h thereafter,Johnsonexpressedto_Halasz_ԀadesiretohaveSundays d off,ifpossible.Johnsonhadalsohaddiscussionswithcoworkers  inwhichherevealedhisreligiousbeliefs.Startingeitherin l late1992orearly1993,_Halasz_ԀbeganaskingJohnsonabouthis h religiousviews. _Halasz_Ԁtestifiedthatheunderstoodthereason  thatJohnsondidnotliketoworkonSundayswasbecausehewanted p  togotochurch. _Halasz_Ԁalsotestifiedthathewasawarethat !l" Johnsonwasreligiousbeforehefoundoutin1995thatJohnsonused "$ tobeaminister.  t$&  ` Soonafter_Halasz_Ԁwaspromotedtothepositionof  &p!( supervisor,hestartedmakinginappropriateandlewdcommentsto '#* Johnson.Johnsonrecountedoneincidentinlate1992inwhich x)$, _Halasz_Ԁtoldhimto"helpholdmydick"andanotherincidentin $+t&. which_Halasz_ԀsaidJohnsonlookedtiredandtoldacoworkerthat  "ifAl_fucks_Ԁlikeheworks,thenhemustbeslowasanigger." \  _Halasz_Ԁmademultipleotherinappropriateandsexuallyexplicit X commentstoJohnsonthroughout1992and1993.     ` Atleasttwooftheseremarksspecificallytargeted `  Johnson'sreligiousbeliefs.Atonepoint,_Halasz_Ԁtriedtoshow  \  JohnsonaPlayboymagazineandsaidthathe"mustbeCatholic"   becausehegotflusteredwhenever_Halasz_Ԁmadecommentsaboutsex. d   Johnsonsaidthatonanotheroccasionin1992,_Halasz_Ԁproclaimedto `  anothercustodianthat"Aldoesn'tfuck,drinkorsmoke,hemustbe   aCatholic." _Halasz_Ԁadmittedtomakingderogatoryremarksto h JohnsonandteasinghimforbeingCatholic. Healsosaidthathe d rememberedcallingJohnsonaCatholicwhenherefusedtolookata  Playboymagazine.  l  ` Upsetby_Halasz_'streatmentofhim,Johnsonstartedin h 1994tokeepnotesof"significant"eventsthatheconsidered  "hostileordemeaning." Johnsonkeptnotesofnumerousinstances p  ofharassmentby_Halasz_Ԁthatoccurredfrom1992untilMay2000, !l" whenJohnsonleftSpencerPress. Theseincluded_Halasz_'scomments "$ thatJohnsonshouldsuck_Halasz_'sdick,that_Halasz_Ԁhopedadeer t$& would"run[]outofthewoodsandsuck[][his]cock,"andthat  &p!( Johnsonshouldgivehisbossa"blowjob." _Halasz_Ԁdidnotmake '#* commentslikethesetoanyoftheothercustodiansatSpencer x)$, Press. OneofJohnson'sformercoworkers,Patrick_Hubbard_, $+t&. confirmedthat_Halasz_ԀconsistentlyandfrequentlycalledJohnson  namessuchas"fuckingqueer,""fuckingcocksucker,"and"fucking \ lazy."_Hubbard_Ԁtestifiedthatheneverheard_Halasz_Ԁcallanyother X workersbythesenames.     ` Asignificantpercentageofthederogatorycommentsthat `  _Halasz_Ԁmadefrom1994to2000involvedJohnson'sreligion._Halasz_  \  calledJohnsona"religiousfreak"andtoldJohnsonthathewas   tiredofhis"religiousbullshit." AccordingtoJohnson,_Halasz_ d  toldhimthatbecauseofhisreligiousbeliefshe"wasn'tout `  basicallygettingpussy." OnApril27,2000,adaybeforeJohnson   tenderedhisresignationtoSpencerPress,_Halasz_ԀtoldJohnsonthat  "hewasgettingrealtiredofhearingthat[Johnson]couldn'twork 0 overtimeonSundays,that[he]wasinvolvedinchurchandclasses, , and[that_Halasz_]didn'tlikeit." _Halasz_ԀthenaskedJohnson"if  youcouldworkovertime...andmake$120orloveJesus,what 4 wouldyoudo?"WhenJohnsonansweredthathewouldloveJesus, 0 _Halasz_Ԁscreamed"well,whydon'tyoutakeMaryandturnherupside   downandpullherdressoverherhead."  8!"  ` _Halasz_'sderogatoryremarksinvolvingreligionwerealso "4$ corroboratedbythetestimonyofJohnson'sformercoworker.Karen $& Hart,whoworkedwithJohnsonasacustodianin1999,testified <&!( that_Halasz_ԀharassedJohnsonabouthisreligionandcalledhima '8#* "religiousfreak." Hartrecalled_Halasz_ԀtellingJohnsonthat"I )$, don'twanttohearaboutyourreligiousbullshit"and,onanother @+&. occasion,thatheshould"goworkwithpeoplethatareJehovah  Witnessesandkeepyourcommentstoyourself[because]Idon'twant \ tohearaboutthereligiousstuff." _Halasz_ԀalsotoldJohnsonthat X Johnson'sjobwasmoreimportantthanhischurchaffairs. _Halasz_   madethesecomments,accordingtoHart,"onadailybasis"while `  shewasworkingatSpencerPress. Harttestifiedthatshewasso  \  distraughtbythesecommentsthatshetold_Halasz_Ԁthathe   "shouldn'tbeharassing[Johnson]abouthisreligion."  d   ` Johnson'stestimonythat_Halasz_Ԁconsistentlyharassedhim `  abouthisreligiousbeliefswasalsocorroboratedbyNorma   Crawford,afriendofJohnson.CrawfordtestifiedthatJohnson h frequentlycalledherfromworkwhenhewasupsetandtoldherthat d hewasbeingharassedatworkbecauseofhisreligion. Onseveral  oftheseoccasions,accordingtoCrawford,Johnsonwascryingwhen l hecalledher. CrawfordtestifiedthatJohnsontoldherabout h _Halasz_'scommentregardingtheVirginMary.    ` Johnsonalsotestifiedaboutseveralinstancesinwhich p  _Halasz_Ԁthreatenedtokillhimwithahandgrenade,runhimover !l" withacar,andshoothimwithabowandarrow. Atonepoint, "$ _Halasz_Ԁtookaknifeoutofitssheathandputthepointofitunder t$& Johnson'schin.   &p!(  ` Johnsoncomplainedtothehumanresourcesdepartment '#* aboutthetreatmenthewasreceivingfrom_Halasz_Ԁaboutsix x)$, differenttimesoverthecourseofhisemployment.Eachtime,he $+t&. _wastoldthattherewasnothingthatcouldbedoneand,thatifhe  didnotlikethetreatmenthewasreceiving,hecouldleavethe \ company. Atonepoint,thehumanresourcespersontowhomJohnson X complainedtoldhimthatshecouldnotpursuehiscomplaintsabout   Halaszbecauseifshedidshewouldbefired. Johnsonalsofiled `  severalrequeststotransferintoanotherdivisionwithinSpencer ( x  Press,eachofwhichwasdenied. $   ` OnApril28,2000,Halaszresignedhispositionfrom   SpencerPress. Hehadbeenexperiencingfrequentpanicattacksat ,|  work,andatonepointhehadneededtobetakentothehospitalin ( anambulanceasaresultofapanicattack. Healsohadsuffered  fromseveredepression. OnMay2,hebegananotherjobat 0 HannafordBrothers,asupermarketchain. # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL ,  ` JohnsonsubsequentlyfiledacomplaintwiththeMaine  HumanRightsCommissionandtheEqualEmploymentOpportunity 4 Commission. AfterJohnsonfiledthesecomplaints,Halaszcameto 0 Johnson'shouseandthreatenedtobeathimupifhemaintainedhis   complaints. HealsotoldJohnsonthatasaresultofthe 8!" complaints,hehadbeenforcedtotakeharassmentclassesat "4$ SpencerPressandthathehadlearnedthathehaddiscriminated $& againstJohnsononthebasisofhisreligion. # XSLXXXSLrM#XSLXX XSL <&!(  ` OnMay1,2003,ajuryreturnedaverdictinwhichit '8#* concludedthatSpencerPressharassedJohnsonbecauseofhis )$, religionorreligiousbeliefsandthatJohnsonwas_constructively @+&. dischargedfromSpencerPressbecauseofthatharassment. Thejury  alsofoundthatSpencerPresshadnotindependentlytakenany \ specificadverseemploymentactionagainstJohnsononthebasisof X hisreligion. ThejuryawardedJohnson$400,000incompensatory   damagesand$750,000inpunitivedamages. SpencerPressdidnot `  fileaRule50motionforjudgmentasamatteroflaw.  \   ` SpencerPressdidmoveforanewtrialpursuanttoFed.   R.Civ.Proc.59,arguingthattherewasinsufficientevidenceto d  supportthejury'sverdict. Thatmotionwasdenied,andjudgment `  wasenteredinfavorofJohnsonontheharassmentclaim.Pursuant   to42U.S.C.1981a(b)(3)(D),thesumofcompensatoryandpunitive h damageswascappedat$300,000. Johnsonwasalsoawarded$1,227.94 d inbackpay,whichrepresentedJohnson'swagelossbetweenMay2,  2000andDecember8,2000,theperiodhewasemployedat_Hannaford_ l Brothers.  h  ` SpencerPressappealsboththedistrictcourt'sdenialof  itsmotionforanewtrialandtheunderlyingjudgment. Johnson p  crossappealsthedistrictcourt'srulinglimitingtheavailability !l" offrontandbackpay. "$     t$& II.DirectAppeal   WA.DenialofSpencerPress'sMotionforaNewTrial x  ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sdenialofSpencerPress's $t motionforanewtrialforanabuseofdiscretion. #  4      ׀_Marrero_v.   _Goya_ԀofP.R.,Inc.,304F.3d7,14(1stCir.2002).Indoingso, |  werecognizethatmotionsforanewtrialaregenerally"directed ( x  tothetrialcourt'sdiscretionand_th[e_]remedyissparingly $  used."Dallv.Coffin,970F.2d964,969(1stCir.1992)(internal   quotationmarksomitted).Adistrictcourtshouldonlygrantsuch ,|  motionsif"theoutcomeisagainsttheclearweightoftheevidence ( suchthatupholdingtheverdictwillresultinamiscarriageof  justice."Ramosv.Davis&_Geck_,Inc.,167F.3d727,731(1stCir. 0 1999)(internalquotationmarksomitted). ,  ` ThejuryfoundinfavorofJohnsononhisworkplace  harassmentclaimbasedonreligion. SpencerPressarguesthat 4 therewasnocausallinktoreligionandthattheharassmentwas 0 notsevereandpervasive.Toprevailonaharassmentclaimbased   onasupervisor'sconduct,Johnsonneededtocarryhisburdenthat:  (1)hewasamemberofaprotectedclass;(2)hewassubjectto \ uninvitedharassment;(3)theoffendingconductwasbecauseofhis X religion;(4)theharassmentwassufficientlysevereorpervasive   toaffectthetermsandconditionsofemployment;(5)theoffending `  conductwasbothobjectivelyandsubjectivelyoffensive;and(6)  \  therewasabasisforemployerliability.Riverav.P.R.Aqueduct   &SewersAuth.,331F.3d183,189(1stCir.2003);_O'Rourke_,235 d  F.3dat728.SpencerPressarguesthatthejury'sconclusionin `  favorofJohnsonwasagainsttheclearweightoftheevidenceon   bothprongs(3)and(4). h  ` Inadvancingtheclaimthatanyharassmentwasnotdueto d religion,SpencerPressreliesheavilyonRivera,inwhichwenoted  a"conceptualgapbetweenanenvironmentthatisoffensivetoa l personofstrongreligioussensibilitiesandanenvironmentthatis h offensivebecauseofhostilitytothereligionguidingthose  sensibilities."331F.3dat190. #  5      ׀AlthoughSpencerPressadmits p  thattheremayhavebeenseveralisolatedincidentsinwhichthe !l"  harassmentmanifesteditselfincommentsimplicatingreligion,it "$ arguesthatthiswasnotsufficientforthejurytoconcludethat  Johnsonwasharassedbecauseofhisreligion. \   ` Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin X decliningtograntanewtrial.Soonafter_Halasz_Ԁwaspromotedto   custodialsupervisor,hebecameawarethatJohnsonwasareligious `  person.Atapproximatelythesametime,hestartedmaking  \  extremelyinappropriateandlewdcommentstoJohnson.Atfirst,   onlysomeoftheseremarksexplicitlytargetedJohnson'sreligion: d  _Halasz_ԀrepeatedlysaidthatJohnson"mustbeCatholic"becausehe `  didnotwanttodocertainthings.Gradually,though,the   harassmentcametofocusunabashedlyonJohnson'sreligiousviews. h _Halasz_ԀrepeatedlycalledJohnsona"religiousfreak,"toldhimnot d totalkabout"religiousbullshit,"saidthatbecauseofhis  religionhewasnotgettingsex,andtoldhimto"take[theVirgin] l Maryandturnherupsidedownandpullherdressoverherhead." h  ` Almostalloftheinappropriatecommentsconcerning  Johnson'sreligionfocusedonaconsistenttheme:thatJohnsonwas p  toochasteandsoberfor_Halasz_'stasteandthatthiswasbecause !l" ofJohnson'sreligiousbeliefs._Halasz_Ԁdidnotmakesimilarly "$ inappropriateandoffensivecommentstootherSpencerPress t$& employees.Giventheconsistencyoftheharassmentthat  &p!( specificallyinvokedJohnson'sreligionandthemorefrequent '#* harassmentthatdidnot,thejurycouldeasilyhaveconcludedthat x)$, theunderlyingmotivationreligiousdiscriminationwasthe $+t&. sameforeach.Thejuryalsocouldhaveeasilyconcludedthatthis  motivationstemmedfrom_Halasz_'sanimositytowardsJohnson's \ religiousbeliefs;indeed,_Halasz_ԀexplicitlyattributedJohnson's X chastityandsobrietytohisreligiousconvictions.Asexplained   inRivera,"conductneednotbeexplicitlyreligioustoconstitute `  harassmentbecauseofreligion."331F.3dat190n.2;see_Venters_  \  v.CityofDelphi,123F.3d956,973(7thCir.1997)(religious   harassmentcanbeestablishedthroughindirectcommentsthatare d  notontheirfaceaboutreligion);cf._Landrau_-Romerov.Banco `  PopulardePuertoRico,212F.3d607,614(1stCir.2000)("Alleged   conductthatisnotexplicitlyracialinnaturemay,inappropriate h circumstances,beconsideredalongwithmoreovertlydiscriminatory d conductinassessingaTitleVIIharassmentclaim.").   ` Forsimilarreasons,werejectSpencerPress'sargument l thatitwasagainsttheclearweightoftheevidenceforthejury h tofindthattheharassmentenduredbyJohnsonwassufficiently  "severeorpervasive"toaffecta"term,condition,orprivilegeof p  employment."_Meritor_Ԁ_Sav_.Bank,FSBv.Vinson,477U.S.57,67 !l" (1986).Whethertheharassmentwassevereorpervasive"mustbe "$ answeredbyreferenceto'allthecircumstances,'includingthe t$& 'frequencyofthediscriminatoryconduct;itsseverity;whetherit  &p!( isphysicallythreateningorhumiliating,oramereoffensive '#* utterance;andwhetheritunreasonablyinterfereswithan x)$, employee'sworkperformance.'"_Marrero_v._Goya_ԀofPuertoRico, $+t&. Inc.,304F.3d7,18(1stCir.2002)(quotingHarrisv.Forklift  Sys.,Inc.,510U.S.17,23(1993))."Subjecttosomepolicingat \ theouterbounds,itisforthejurytoweighthosefactorsand X decidewhethertheharassmentwasofakindortoadegreethata   reasonablepersonwouldhavefeltthatitaffectedtheconditions `  ofheremployment."Id.(internalquotationmarksomitted).  \   ` Thedescriptionoffactssetforthearlierprovidesmore   thanamplesupportforthejury'sconclusion._Halasz_Ԁrepeatedly d  andcontinuouslyinsultedJohnsonandmockedhisreligious `  convictions.TheharassmentoccurredthroughoutJohnson'swork   day,includingwhenhewasattemptingtoperformhiscustodial h duties.Onmultipleoccasions,_Halasz_ԀthreatenedJohnsonwith d violenceandonceheactuallyplacedthepointofaknifeunder  Johnson'schin.Insum,therewasmorethanampleevidenceto l supportthejury'sconclusionthattheharassmentwassevereand h pervasive.SeeWhitev.N.H._Dep't_ԀofCorr.,221F.3d254,26061  (1stCir.2000)(findingthat"disgustingcomments"and p  conversationsthatoccurred"everyday"couldsupportafindingthat !l" harassmentwassevereandpervasive). "$ B.SpencerPress'sChallengetothePunitiveDamagesAward t$&  ` SpencerPressarguesthatthejurydidnothave  &p!( sufficientevidencetoawardpunitivedamagesbecause_Halasz_Ԁwas '#* notacting"inamanagerialcapacity"duringthecourseof x)$, Johnson'semployment._Kolstad_v.Am.Dental_Ass'n_,527U.S.526, $+t&. 54546(1999).# XSLXXXSLPP#XSLXX XSLԀSpencerPressadmitsthatthejuryrationallycould  haverejecteditsaffirmativedefensetoanawardofpunitive \ damagesthatithadexercisedreasonablecaretoavoidharassment X andtoeliminateitwhenitmightoccur.Id.at545.    ` Theavailabilityofpunitivedamagesisnotaliveissue. `  ThejuryawardedJohnson$400,000incompensatorydamagesand  \  $750,000inpunitivedamages. Actingpursuantto42U.S.C.   1981a(b)(3)(D)andMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.5, d  4613(2)(B)(8)(e)(iv),bothofwhichcapthesumofpunitiveand `  compensatorydamagesforemployerswithover500employees,the   districtcourtenteredjudgmentforJohnsonfor$300,000.X #  6      ׀Because h thecompensatorydamagesawardwasitselfgreaterthanthe d statutorycap,theawardwouldhavebeenthesameregardlessof  whetherthejuryawardedanypunitivedamages.SeeQuintv._A.E._ l _Staley_ԀMfg.Co.,172F.3d1,14(1stCir.1999)(decliningto h addresswhetheracompensatorydamagesawardwasexcessivebecause  theawardofpunitivedamagesexceededthestatutorycap);Hoganv. p  Bangor&AroostookR.R.Co.,61F.3d1034,1037(1stCir.1995) !l" (avoidingtheissueofpunitivedamagesbecausethejury'sawardof "$ compensatorydamageswasthesameasthestatutorycap). t$& C.SpencerPress'sChallengetotheJuryInstructionsonthe󀀀  &p!( ЀSevereorPervasiveRequirement &F")   '#* C ` SpencerPressarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinits   explanationtothejuryoftherequirementthattheharassmentbe \ "severeorpervasive."SpencerPresspreservedtheobjection.  X  ` Thedistrictcourtinstructedthejurythat,tosucceed   onhisharassmentclaim,Johnsonmustshow: `  44thattheharassmentwassufficientlysevereor  \  pervasivesoastoaltertheconditionsofhis  2  employmentandcreateanabusiveworking   environment....    ` Religiouslydiscriminatoryremarks,innuendos, d  ridicule,andintimidationcanbesufficiently :  severeorpervasiveintheiraccumulatedeffectto `  altertheconditionsofemploymentandcreatean 6 abusiveworkingenvironment.Butoffhandcomments,   rudeness,occasionalteasingandisolatedincidents  arenotalonesufficient.Thisisnotageneral h civilitycodefortheworkplace.  >  ` 4ԉ4SpencerPress'sargumentisthatthisinstructionwasflawed : becauseitdidnotincludeastatementthattheconductmustbe  "extreme."ThisargumentispremisedontheSupremeCourt's B statementin_Faragher_that"conductmustbeextremetoamounttoa > changeinthetermsandconditionsofemployment."524U.S.at788  (emphasisadded). F !  ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'schoiceoflanguagein !B# instructingthejuryforanabuseofdiscretion.Grayv._Genlyte_ #% Group,Inc.,289F.3d128,133(1stCir.2002).Thedistrictcourt J% ' didnotabuseitsdiscretioninomittingtheword"extreme"from &F") itsinstructionstothejury.Itisthedistrictcourt's (#+ prerogativetocraftthe"particularverbiage"thatitwillusein N*%- itsjuryinstructions._Febres_v.ChallengerCaribbeanCorp.,214 +J'/ F.3d57,62(1stCir.2000).Solongasthatlanguageproperly  explainsthecontrollinglegalstandardsandisnotunduly \ confusingormisleading,itwillnotbesecondguessedonappeal. X Seeid.;Brownv.TrusteesofBostonUniv.,891F.2d337,353(1st   Cir.1989);seealsoWebster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary `  807(1993)(onedefinitionof"extreme"is"markedbygreat  \  severity").Thereisnorequirementthattheword"extreme"be   usedininstructingthejuryonaharassmentclaim. d    III.Johnson'sCrossAppealRegardingDamages  `   ` Johnsoncrossappealsthedistrictcourt'ssummary ( judgmentandposttrialdeterminationsthat,asamatteroflaw,he  isnotentitledtoanybackpayorfrontpayforanyperiodbeyond 0 December8,2000.SpencerPressraisesnoquestionsabout , Johnson'spreservationoftheseissuesforappeal.# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀ# XSLXXXSLŖ#XSLXX XSLԀ # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL   ` Theavailabilityofbackpayandfrontpayisnot 4 affectedbythecaponcompensatoryandpunitivedamages.Both 0 federalandMainelawclearlyexcludeawardsofbackpayfromthe   statutorycaponthesumofcompensatoryandpunitivedamages.See 8!" 42U.S.C.1981a(b)(2);Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.5, "4$ 4613(2)(B)(8)(d).AndtheSupremeCourthasrecentlyclarified $& thatthesameruleappliestoawardsoffrontpay.Pollardv.E.I. <&!( duPontde_Nemours_Ԁ&Co.,532U.S.843,848(2001)# XSLXXXSLQ#XSLXX XSL.# XSLXXXSL]#XSLXX XSL '8#*  ` Anawardofbackpaycompensatesplaintiffsforlost )$, wagesandbenefitsbetweenthetimeofthedischargeandthetrial @+&. courtjudgment.See_Lindemann_Ԁ&Grossman,Employment  DiscriminationLaw63537(Cane,Jr.etal.eds.,3ded.1996). \ Frontpay,bycontrast,is"moneyawardedforlostcompensation X duringtheperiodbetweenjudgmentandreinstatementorinlieuof   reinstatement."Pollard,532U.S.at846;see_Lindemann_Ԁ& `  Grossman,at63942.Frontpaythuscompensatesplaintiffsfor  \  lostwagesthatmayaccrueaftertheconclusionofthetrial.# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL   # XSLXXXSL'#XSLXX XSLBothbackpayandfrontpayareauthorizedby42U.S.C.2000e d  5(g)(1),whichprovides: `  Ifthecourtfindsthattherespondenthasintentionally   engagedinorisintentionallyengaginginanunlawful  employmentpracticechargedinthecomplaint,thecourt h may...ordersuchaffirmativeactionasmaybe > appropriate,whichmayinclude,butisnotlimitedto, d reinstatementorhiringofemployees,withorwithout : backpay(payablebytheemployer,employmentagency,or  labororganization,asthecasemaybe,responsiblefor  theunlawfulemploymentpractice),oranyotherequitable l reliefasthecourtdeemsappropriate.Backpayliability B shallnotaccruefromadatemorethantwoyearspriorto h thefilingofachargewiththeCommission.Interim > earningsoramounts_earnable_Ԁwithreasonablediligenceby  thepersonorpersonsdiscriminatedagainstshalloperate  toreducethebackpayotherwiseallowable. p  #1? ` Duringthebackpayperiod,i# XSLXXXSL~#XSLXX XSLndividualshavean !l" obligationtoexercise"reasonablediligence"infinding "$ alternativesuitableemployment.See42U.S.C.2000e-5(g)(1); t$& FordMotorCo.v._EEOC_,458U.S.219,23132(1982)(an"unemployed  &p!( orunderemployedclaimant,likeallotherTitleVIIclaimants,is '#* subjecttothestatutorydutytominimizedamagessetoutin"42 x)$, U.S.C.2000e-5(g)(1));Careyv.Mt.DesertIslandHosp.,156F.3d $+t&. 31,41(1stCir.1998).Thus,awardsofbackpayareoffsetbyany  wagesthatcouldhavebeenearnedwithreasonablediligenceafter \ theillegaldischarge,regardlessofwhethertheywereactually X earned.See2000e-5(g)(1);_Quinones_Ԁ_Candelario_v.Postmaster   Gen.ofUnitedStates,906F.2d798,799802(1stCir.1990). `  # XSLXXXSL^#XSLXX XSLFailurestomitigatedamagescantakeavarietyofforms,including  \  notlookingfornewemployment,see,e.g.,Hansardv.PepsiCola   Metro.BottlingCo.,865F.2d1461,1468(5thCir.1989),finding d  newemploymentbutvoluntarilyquitting,see,e.g.,_EEOC_v.Delight `  WholesaleCo.,973F.2d664,670(8thCir.1992),# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLor,asinthis   case,findingnewemploymentandgettingdischargedformisconduct, h see,e.g.,Bradyv.ThurstonMotorLines,Inc.,753F.2d1269,1277 d (4thCir.1985).# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL  Ѐ ` TheSupremeCourtlaidoutthebasicstandardsfor l awardingbackpayi# XSLXXXSLV#XSLXX XSLn_Albemarle_ԀPaperCo.v.Moody,422U.S.405 h (1975).Thatopinionclarifiedthatincasesofunlawful  discrimination,"backpayshouldbedeniedonlyforreasonswhich, p  ifappliedgenerally,wouldnotfrustratethecentralstatutory !l" purposesoferadicatingdiscriminationthroughouttheeconomyand "$ makingpersonswholeforinjuriessufferedthroughpast t$& discrimination."Id.at421.Despiteitsequitablenature,back  &p!( payistherefore"apresumptiveentitlementofaplaintiffwho '#* successfullyprosecutesanemploymentdiscriminationcase." x)$, _Thurman_v.YellowFreight_Systs_.,Inc.,90F.3d1160,1171(6th $+t&. Cir.1996).Inthiscircuit,juriesaregenerallyentrustedwith  decisionsonbackpaywhenthejurorsarealreadyresolvingissues \ ofliabilityandcompensatorydamages." #  7      ׀SeeSantiago-_Negron_v. X Castro-_Davila_,865F.2d431,441(1stCir.1989).# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL    ` Awardsoffrontpay,bycontrast,aregenerallyentrusted `  tothedistrictjudge'sdiscretion  #  8      ׀andareavailableinamore  \  limitedsetofcircumstancesthanbackpay.See_Lussier_v.Runyon,   50F.3d1103,110809(1stCir.1995).# XSLXXXSLԲ#XSLXX XSLԀFrontpayshouldnotbe d  awardedunlessreinstatementisimpracticableorimpossible. `  _Wildman_v.LernerStoresCorp.,771F.2d605,616(1stCir.1985).   Eventhen,# XSLXXXSL۴#XSLXX XSLawardsoffrontpayarediscretionary,inpartbecause h theynecessarilyinvolvepredictionsofeventsyettocome.See d id.;_Lussier_,50F.3dat1109.# XSLXXXSL2#XSLXX XSLԀForthesereasons,districtcourt  decisionsastofrontpayaregenerallyaffordedmoredeference l thandecisionsastobackpay. h # XSLXXXSLj#XSLXX XSL ` ThedistrictcourtruledthatJohnsonstoppedmitigating  hisdamagesaboutsevenmonthsafterheleftSpencerPress,whenhe p  wasfiredonDecember8,2000fromhissubsequentjobat_Hannaford_ !l" Brothers,amajorsupermarketchaininMaine# XSLXXXSLr#XSLXX XSL.Johnsonhadstarted "$ thatjobonlyafewdaysafterleavingSpencerPress.Johnsonwas  foundeatingfoodforwhichhehadnotpaid,inviolationof \ _Hannaford_Ԁcompanyrules. # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL Thisfailuretomitigatedamages,held X thedistrictcourt,eliminatedtheavailabilityofeitherbackpay   orfrontpayforanytimeperiodafterDecember8._ #  9      _# XSLXXXSLX#XSLXX XSLԀ Moreover,the `  districtcourtfoundthattherewasinsufficientevidencethatthe  \  mistreatmentJohnsonenduredatSpencerPresswascausally   responsibleforhisbeingfiredfrom_Hannaford_. Thecourt d  concludedthatJohnson'sownlaytestimonytothiseffectdidnot `  createanissueoffactandthatJohnson'sexpertwasnot"specific   enough"onthelinkbetweenJohnson'sdisabilityandhis h  misbehaviorat_Hannaford_.  #  10       d # XSLXXXSLּ#XSLXX XSL ` Johnson'scrossappealdoesnotdisputetheconclusion   thatSpencerPresswasnotresponsibleforhisterminationfrom \ _Hannaford_.Instead,Johnson'sbasicargumentisthatthedistrict X courtmisunderstoodtheimplicationsofhisbeingfiredfrom   _Hannaford_Ԁfortheavailabilityofbothfrontandbackpay.Johnson `  arguesthathisterminationfrom_Hannaford_Ԁonlytolledthe  \  availabilityofbackpayuntilhewasabletofindanotherjob,and   thatthedistrictcourterroneouslyheldthattheavailabilityof d  backpaywaspermanentlycutoffatthatpoint.Johnsonmakesa `  similarargumentastofrontpay,claimingthatthedistrictcourt   stillhaddiscretiontoawardfrontpayevenafterhewasfired h from_Hannaford_.Furthermore,Johnsonsaysthathewasunableto d findajobafterhewasfiredfrom_Hannaford_Ԁbecausehewas  psychologicallycompletelydisabledandSpencerPressis l responsibleforthisdisability.Asaresult,Johnsonargues, h SpencerPressisliableforbackpayafterhewasfiredfrom  _Hannaford_Ԁbecauseitwasresponsibleforhisinabilitytoendthe p  tollingperiod.Similarly,Johnsonsaysthatthedistrictcourt !l" couldalsohaveawardedfrontpayonthisrationale.The "$ analyticalissuesastobackpayandfrontpayaresimilar. t$& A.Backpay  &p!( # XSLXXXSL #XSLXX XSL ` Reviewofthelegalprinciplesusedbythedistrictcourt '#* indeterminingtheavailabilityofbackpayisdenovo.# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀReichv. x)$, _Cambridgeport_ԀAirSys.,26F.3d1187,1190(1stCir.1994). $+t&. Johnson'sappealraisesanumberofdifficultissues.AsJohnson  notes,thedistrictcourt'sfinalholdingwasthatonceJohnsonwas \ firedfrom_Hannaford_,hewasnolongereligibleforanybackpay.+ #  11      ׀ X  ` # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLThedistrictcourtwascorrectthatonceJohnsonwas   firedfrom_Hannaford_Ԁformisconduct,hewasnolongermitigating `  hisdamages,aswasrequired.Butthatdidnotmeanthatthe  \  possibilityofbackpaywaspermanentlycutoff.Althoughthe   districtcourtdidnotexplicitlyendorse,orevengivereasons d  for,sucharule,itsholdingnecessarilyreliedonthis `  suppositionoflaw._!  #  12      _# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀWeholdthatthiswaserror.    ` Infact,atleasttwocircuitcourtshavefoundthatback h payawardscanaccrueforperiodsafteranemployeeisterminated d froman"employerB"whenthejobat"employerB"wasservingto  mitigatedamagesarisingfromdiscriminatoryconductby"employer \ A."SeeDelightWholesale,973F.2dat670(backpayperiodwas X temporarilytolledafterplaintiffvoluntarilyquitforpersonal   reasonsandbegantorunonceshefoundanewjob);Brady,753F.2d `  at127880(backpayistemporarilytolledafteranemployeeis  \  firedformisconductinthecourseofmitigatingdamagesfroma   previousillegaldischargeandbeginsagainoncetheemployeefinds d  anotherjob).Theseholdingsstem,atleastinpart,fromthe `  NLRB'sruleontheissue,# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLfirstarticulatedinKnickerbocker   PlasticCo.,132N.L.R.B.1209,1215(1961): h Wefurtherfindthat,asaresultofsuchquitting,each d oftheseclaimantsshallbedeemedtohaveearnedforthe : remainderoftheperiodforwhicheachisawardedback  paythehourlywagebeingearnedatthetimesuch  quittingoccurred.Therefore,anoffsetcomputedonthe l appropriaterateperhourwillbedeductedasinterim B earningsfromthegrossbackpayofeachofthese h claimants.Thisoffsetshallbemadeapplicablefromthe > dateoftheunjustifiedquittingthroughouttheremainder  ofthebackpayperiodforeachparticularclaimant.  (emphasisadded).BecauseTitleVII'sbackpaylanguage# XSLXXXSL #XSLXX XSLԀwas F ! "'expresslymodeled'ontheanalogousremedialprovisionofthe !B# NationalLaborRelationsAct(_NLRA_)"the"principlesdeveloped #% underthe_NLRA_Ԁgenerallyguide,butdonotbind,courtsin J% ' tailoringremediesunderTitleVII."FordMotorCo.,458U.S.at &F") 226n.8(internalcitationsomitted).# XSLXXXSL{#XSLXX XSL (#+  ` # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLWeholdthatbackpayisnotpermanentlyterminatedwhen N*%- anemployeeisfiredformisconductorvoluntarilyquitsinterim +J'/ employment. #  13      # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀThisviewcomportswiththe# XSLXXXSL9#XSLXX XSLԀpurposeofthebackpay  remedyasarticulatedin_Albermarle_# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL._Albermarle_taughtthatback \ payisapresumptiveentitlementofavictimofdiscriminationand X thatthediscriminatingemployerisresponsibleforallwagelosses   thatresultfromitsunlawfuldiscrimination,atleastuntilthe `  timeofjudgment.# #  14      # XSLXXXSLP#XSLXX XSLԀ422U.S.at41921.Hadtherebeenno  \  discriminationatemployerA,theemployeewouldneverhavecometo   work(orhavebeenfired)fromemployerB.) #  15      # XSLXXXSLT#XSLXX XSLԀThediscriminating d  employer(employerA)shouldnotbenefitfromthewindfallofnot  payingthesalarydifferentialwhentheemployeeisreemployedby \ employerC.*@ #  16      ׀Further,theuseofperserulesiscontrarytothe X generalprinciplethatthenecessarybalancingoftheequities   requiresacasebycaseapproach.Rosario-Torresv. `  Hernandez-Colon,889F.2d314,321(1stCir.1989)(enbanc)  \  (# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL"[_T]he_Ԁhallmarkofequityistheabilitytoassessallrelevant   factsandcircumstancesandtailorappropriatereliefonacaseby d  casebasis.");_Medlock_v._Ortho_ԀBiotech,Inc.,164F.3d545,555 `  (10thCir.),cert.denied,528U.S.813(1999).   # XSLXXXSLd#XSLXX XSL ` # XSLXXXSL\#XSLXX XSLUltimately,weneednotcraftgeneralprinciplesforhow h backpayshouldbecalculatedwhenanemployeewhohasbeen d discriminatedagainstisfiredfrominterveningemployment.But  ourholdingdoesrequireustoreachasecondissue.Here,o# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLnce l Johnsonwasfiredfrom_Hannaford_,heneversoughtoutemployment h beforetrialinafurtherattempttomitigatedamages.Johnson  explainsthathedidnotseekfurtheremploymentbecausehewas \ unabletoworkashesufferedfromatotalpsychological X disability;indeed,Johnsonreceiveda100percentnonservice   connecteddisabilityratingfromtheVeteran'sAdministration.  `  Somecourtshaveadoptedarulethatifaplaintiffisunableto ( x  mitigatedamagesduetoadisabilitynotcausedbythe $  discriminatoryemployer,thatdisabilitycutsoffbackpay   liability.- #  17      ׀_Lathem_v._Dep't_ԀofChildren&Youth_Servs_.,172F.3d ,|  786,794(11thCir.1999)("[_C]ourts_Ԁexcludeperiodswherea ( plaintiffisunavailabletowork,suchasperiodsofdisability,  fromthebackpayaward.");_Starceski_v.WestinghouseElec.Corp., 0 54F.3d1089,1101(3rdCir.1995)("[_A]s_Ԁageneralrule...an  employerwhohasdiscriminatedneednotreimbursetheplaintiffs \ forsalarylossattributabletotheplaintiffsandunrelatedtothe X employmentdiscrimination."(internalquotationmarksomitted))# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL.   Here,Johnsondoesnotarguethatadisabilityarising `  independentlyofthediscriminatoryemployerdoesnotcutoffback  \  pay,sowedonotruleontheissue.# XSLXXXSLA#XSLXX XSLԀ# XSLXXXSL_#XSLXX XSLJohnsondoes,however,argue   thattherewasevidencethathisdisabilitywascausedbythe d  harassmentheenduredatSpencerPress.Ifitwas,hesays,then `  bothbackpayandfrontpayshouldhavebeenavailableevenafter   hewasfiredfrom_Hannaford_Ԁformisconduct. h  ` Johnsoniscorrectthatseveralcourtshaveheldthatan d employeewhoisunabletoworkduetoadisabilityisnotprecluded  fromreceivingbackpaywhentheemployer"caused"thedisability.# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀ# XSLXXXSLo#XSLXX XSL l Thiscourthas,applyingMassachusettslaw,endorsedthatrule. h See_Blockel_v.J.C.PenneyCo.,337F.3d17,2728(1stCir.  2003).WenowextendthatholdingtoTitleVII;anemployeewho p  cannotmitigatedamagesbecauseoftheunlawfulactionsofthe !l" employercanstillreceivebackpay.See_Lathem_,172F.3dat794 "$ ("[A]TitleVIIclaimantisentitledtoanawardofbackpaywhere t$& thedefendant'sdiscriminatoryconductcausedthedisability.");  &p!( DurhamLifeIns.Co.v.Evans,166F.3d139,157(3dCir.1999) '#* ("Because[theemployer's]conductaffirmativelyimpaired[the x)$, employee's]abilitytomitigateherdamages,itwouldbe $+t&. inequitabletoreduceherbackpayawardinthiscase.").# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀThis  ruleismerelyalogicalcorollaryoftheprinciplethatthe \ # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLvictimsofdiscriminationshouldberestored,"sofaraspossible X ...toapositionwheretheywouldhavebeenwereitnotforthe   unlawfuldiscrimination."_Albermarle_,422U.S.at421.Ifthe `  employer'sunlawfulconductcausedtheemployee'sinabilityto  \  mitigatedamages,thentheemployershouldbeliableforthe   resultingconsequences.# XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLԀ d  # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSL ` # XSLXXXSL#XSLXX XSLNonetheless,theevidenceprovidedbyJohnsondoesnot `  allowhimtotakeadvantageofthisrule.Thatevidencedoesno   morethancreateanissueregardingwhethertheharassmentat h SpencerPresswasoneamongnumerousotherindependentand d significantcontributingfactorstoJohnson'spsychological  disability.Besideshisowntestimony,theonlyevidencethat l Johnsonoffered# XSLXXXSLi#XSLXX XSLԀwasthetestimonyofoneexpert,Dr._Ananis_.Dr. h _Ananis_ԀstatedinadepositionthatJohnson  hadbeenabletomaintainacertaindegreeoffunctioning p  andemploymentuntiltheeventswhichtookplaceduring F ! hisemploymentatSpencerPress,includingtheharassment !l" hestatedhereceivedwhileheworkedthere.Iamaware !B# thatMr.Johnsonhadotherissuesinhislife,including "$ familydeaths,divorce,andproblemswithhissons,and #% Ididnotmakeadeterminationastowhateventor t$& events,ifany,causedhisdepressionandpanicand J% ' anxietydisorders.Nevertheless,itiscleartomethat  &p!( theeventsatSpencerPressrelatingtotheharassmenthe &F") statedhereceivedfromhissupervisorexacerbatedhis '#* depressionandpanicandanxietydisorders.  (#+ Althoughthistestimonymayhavecreatedagenuinequestionoffact N*%- aboutwhethertherewassomerelationshipbetweentheharassmentat +J'/ SpencerPressandJohnson'sdisability,itwasnotsufficientfor  Johnsontoescapesummaryjudgmentontheissue.Giventhat \ Johnsonwasabletofindanewjobat_Hannaford_Ԁimmediatelyafter X leavingSpencerPressandthentokeepthejobforthenextseven   monthsandgiventhatJohnsonhashadnumerousothersignificant `  problemsinhislifethatmayhavebeencausallyrelatedtohis  \  disability,theevidencewasinsufficient.    ` Johnson'sowntestimonydoesnotbridgethegap.Johnson d  confirmedthathehadsufferedfromdepressionandanxietysince `  1993,andthathehadfamilyproblemsaswellastheproblemshe   sufferedatSpencerPress.Buthedidnot,andcouldnot(owingto h hislackofexpertise),testifythathisinabilitytogetajob d after_Hannaford_ԀwascausedbytheharassmentatSpencerPress.  B.FrontPay l  ` Forthesamereasonsthatweaffirmthedenialofback h payafterDecember8,2000,weconcludethattherewasnoabuseof  discretioninthedistrictcourt'srefusaltograntfrontpay.  p    IV.  !l" ASLXXdXdA=SLXXdXXd= ` Thedistrictcourt'sjudgmentis affirmed .# XSLXXXSL# "4$   Concurringopinionfollows.  X&!(    ` CYR,SeniorCircuitJudge,concurring. AlthoughIagree  thatthegrantofsummaryjudgmentmustbeupheld,Iwrite x separatelybecausethediscussioninthemajorityopinionregarding $t whetherthedistrictcourtimproperlypredicateditsdecisionon   thelegalprinciplethatJohnsonsterminationby_Hannaford_ |  permanentlyseveredhisentitlementtobackpayisanacademic ( x  exercisewhollyunnecessarytothedispositionoftheappeal.Even $  ifitweretobeassumedthatthisprincipleconstitutedan   implicitrationaleuponwhichthedistrictcourtrelied!whichI ,|  seriouslydoubt!itsadoptionplainlydidnotconstituteoutcome ( determinativeerror.Rather,justastheRule56proffermadeby  Johnson(viz.,the_Ananis_Ԁdeposition)wasnotsufficienttoprove 0 that_SPM_Ԁcausedthemisconductthatledtohisterminationby , _Hannaford_,sotooitlogicallycouldnotconstituteevidencethat  _SPM_ԀcausedJohnson'sfulldisability.Thus,asJohnsonwas 4 requiredtobeartheburdenofproofoncausation,_SPM_Ԁwasentitled 0 tosummaryjudgmentundereitherlegaltheory.