Vitaliy Kertchen, V. Washington State Patrol

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that awarding of front pay “necessarily involve[s] predictions of events yet to come”
• determining that the availability of punitive damages was not a “live issue” where the compensatory damage award alone exceeded the statutory cap and, therefore, “the award would have been the same regardless of whether the jury awarded any punitive damages”
• determining that the availability of punitive damages was not a “live issue” where the compensatory damage award alone exceeded the statutory cap and, therefore, “the award would have been the same regardless of whether the jury awarded any punitive damages”
• discussing the other issues plaintiff had in his life “including family deaths, divorce and problems with his sons.”
• “An award of back pay compensates plaintiffs for lost wages and benefits between the time of the discharge and the trial court judgment”
• “Albemarle taught that backpay is a presumptive entitlement of a victim of discrimination and that the discriminating employer is responsible for all wage losses that result from its unlawful discrimination, at least until the time of judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).