Johnson, et al v. Martin, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 18, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 06-30279
Summary Calendar
_______________
CORA JOHNSON AND DELORES SEAY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
JUANETTA MARTIN AND BAYOU HOME BUREAU CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
m 3:03-CV-1979
______________________________
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cora Johnson and Delores Seay sued their
employer for discharging them in retaliation
for filing for unpaid wages under the Fair La-
bor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The district
court offset their damage award by wages they
earned after their employment was terminated.
Because the court properly applied the law, we
affirm.
I.
Plaintiffs were employed by Bayou Home
Bureau Corporation (“Bayou”) and Juanetta
Martin, Bayou’s owner, as Personal Care At-
tendants. They were paid an hourly wage.
They filed claims for unpaid regular and over-
time wages, and Bayou discharged them. The
district court granted summary judgment for

-- 1 of 2 --

2
plaintiffs, finding that the adverse employment
action would not have occurred absent the
FLSA claims. Bayou violated the FLSA by
discharging plaintiffs in retaliation for exercis-
ing their statutory rights.
The trial was limited to a determination of
damages. The court allowed, over objection,
evidence of wages plaintiffs earned from work
they obtained through their own efforts after
their discharge. Based on this evidence, the
court found that Johnson had suffered no dam-
ages and that Seay’s lost wages and liquidated
damages were limited to $7,192, because the
court offset the wages they lost from being
discharged by the wages they subsequently
earned. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the dis-
trict court should not have offset their dam-
ages by the wages they later earned.
II.
We review the denial of a new trial for
abuse of discretion. Int’l Ins. Co. v. RSR
Corp., 426 F.3d 281, 300 (5th Cir. 2005).
The district court did not err in offsetting
plaintiffs’ damages by their post-termination
wages.
The FLSA’s remedy provision specifically
addresses the damages available for employees
discharged for filing complaints for unpaid
wages:
Any employer who violates the provisions
of section 215(a)(3) of this title shall be li-
able for such legal or equitable relief as may
be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of
section 215(a)(3) of this title, including
without limitation employment, reinstate-
ment, promotion, and the payment of wag-
es lost and an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
(2000).
The FLSA does not explicitly address whether
wages earned after termination offset lost
wage damages. In the context of the Age Dis-
crimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),
courts must offset lost wage awards with post-
termination earnings. Stephens v. C.I.T.
Group/Equip. Fin., Inc., 955 F.2d 1023, 1028
(5th Cir. 1992). Under the ADEA, “[c]ourts
uniformly offset interim earnings from back
pay awards in order to make the plaintiff
whole, yet avoid windfall awards.” Id. The
FLSA and ADEA have the same remedies pro-
visions, so this ADEA precedent applies in the
present case. Lubke v. City of Arlington, 455
F.3d 489, 499 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Because the
remedies available under the ADEA and the
FMLA both track the FLSA, cases interpreting
remedies under the statutes should be consis-
tent.”).1
AFFIRMED.
1 See also E.E.O.C. v. White and Son Enters.,
881 F.2d 1006, 1013 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The lan-
guage of Section 216(b) plainly calls for a deduc-
tion of interim earnings from gross back pay al-
lowable as ‘wages lost’ due to a retaliatory dis-
charge.”); Kossman v. Calumet County, 849 F.2d
1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 1988) (adopting the same
rule).

-- 2 of 2 --