PETE A. MORRISON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relieving the employer from a stipulation regarding liquidated damages, while holding them to the stipulation for actual damages.
Plaintiff sued his employer for age discrimination, alleging failure to promote and constructive discharge. A jury found for the plaintiff on the prom…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Promote cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Morrison filed this action against his employer, Genuine Parts Company (“Genuine Parts”), alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621. Morrison alleged two violations: (1) that Genuine Parts failed to promote him; and (2) that Genuine Parts constructively discharged him. The case went to trial by jury, and at the close of Morrison’s case, the court directed a verdict against Morrison on the constructive discharge claim.
The jury returned a verdict in Morrison’s favor on the promotion claim. The parties had stipulated to the amount of damages on the promotion claim, namely $3,566.62, although the district court later found that Morrison’s actual damages were only $92.25. Morrison also claimed liquidated damages, which under the relevant statute amounts to a doubling of the actual damages.
The district court awarded plaintiff $3,566.62, pursuant to the stipulation on the promotion claim, plus $92.25 in liquidated damages. In effect, the district court held Genuine Parts to its stipulation as to the amount of actual damages notwithstanding the fact that the stipulation was in error. However, to avoid doubling the effects of the error, the district court relieved Genuine Parts from the effect of its stipulation with respect to liquidated damages.
The only issue on appeal that warrants discussion1 is Morrison’s argument that the district court abused its discretion in relieving Genuine Parts from the effect of its stipulation on the calculation of liquidated damages. Because the district court has broad discretion in determining whether to hold a party to its stipulation, Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. Hunt, 694 F. 2d 1358, 1369 (5th Cir.1983), relying on Del Rio Distributing, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 589 F. 2d 176, 178 (5th Cir.1979) (holding that “trial judge is vested with broad discretion in determining whether ... a pre-trial order should be modified or amended.”),2 we find no error here.
We conclude that the district court was acting well within its discretionary and equitable powers in refusing to relieve Genuine Parts from its erroneous stipulation with respect to actual damages, and in relieving Genuine Parts from this stipulation with respect to liquidated damages.
The district court could have concluded that while holding Genuine Parts to its stipulation with regard to actual damages was appropriate under the circumstances, a doubling of the erroneous stipulation would have resulted in the kind of “manifest injustice” disapproved in Central Distributors, Inc. v. M.E.T., Inc., 403 F. 2d 943, 945 (5th Cir.1968). Under such circumstances the district court had discretion to relieve Genuine Parts from its stipulation with respect to liquidated damages.
AFFIRMED.
. Morrison also challenges the district court’s direction of a verdict in favor of Genuine Parts on the constructive discharge issue. That issue is controlled by Wardwell v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 786 F. 2d 1554 (11th Cir.1986) (holding that mere failure to promote is not sufficient to support a finding of constructive discharge). The district court having properly determined that there was no constructive discharge in this case, it is apparent that the termination of Morrison’s employment resulted from voluntary resignation. Accordingly, the district court was also correct in denying front pay and reinstatement. The other issues raised on appeal are without merit and warrant no discussion.
. The Coors case was decided prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, and is binding precedent under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Leila Fawaz v. Florida Polymers and Fiesco, 622 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…, 541 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Whether to set aside a stipulation rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. E.g., Graefenhain; Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F. 2d 708 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1065, 108 S.Ct. 1025, 98 L.Ed.2d 990 (1988); 73 Am. Jur.2d Stipulations § 13, at 548-49 (1974); 83 C.J.S. Stipulations § 34, at 88-89 (1953); 2 Fla.Jur.2d Agreed Case and Stipulations § 17, at 438 (1977). In…
-
Meek v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 985 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1993)…he did not believe that hispanics constituted a majority of all registered voters in Dade County at the time of trial. In determining whether to hold a party to its stipulation, the district court has broad discretion. Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F. 2d 708, 709 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1065, 108 S.Ct. 1025, 98 L.Ed.2d 990 (1988). Although we find it is a close question, based on our careful review of the disputed Revised Pre-Trial Stipulation, we find no abuse of discretion in the dis…
-
Gunther Graefenhain and Philip Miller v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198 (7th Cir. 1989)…ct court has “broad discretion” to decide whether to hold a party to its stipulations; the district court’s decision will be overturned on appeal only where the court has clearly and unmistakably abused its discretion. Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F. 2d 708, 709-10 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1025, 98 L.Ed.2d 990 (1988); Cates v. Morgan Portable Bldg. Corp., 780 F. 2d 683, 690-91 (7th Cir.1985). Circumstances had changed between the time of Miller’s stipulation to try damages is…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Coastal States Mktg., Inc. v. Hunt, 694 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. 1983)
- Cent. Distribs., Inc. v. M. E. T., Inc., 403 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Wardwell v. The Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 786 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1986)
- DEL RIO Distrib., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 589 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1979)