Santiago, M. Pets. v. OAG

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “uncertainty” in calculating prejudgment interest does not “defeat the presumption in favor of prejudgment interest” and “[i]t is not within the district court’s discretion to deny the whole award of interest because of ... caleulational ambiguities”
• holding that a denial of front pay was reasonable when the jury “may reasonably have set a date between termination and judgment by which [the employee], using reasonable diligence, should have found ‘comparable’ employment”
• holding in another backpay case that district courts may not deny prejudgment interest solely because of “calculational ambiguities” as to the precise amount owed
• noting plaintiff bears the burden of “establish[ing] the amount of damages she claims resulted from her employer’s conduct”
• affirming the denial of front pay because “the jury may reasonably have set a date between termination and judgment by which Ms. Hutchison, using reasonable diligence, should have found ‘comparable’ employment, as adjusted over time”
• fact that discrimination against women was egregious enough to offend men as well did not cure discrimination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).