Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho

D. Idaho

Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho

DecidedAugust 12, 2019

Docket2:16-cv-00546

StatusUnknown

This text of Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho (Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Idaho primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho, (D. Idaho 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ROLAND HARTER Case No. 2:16-cv-00546-DCN Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND v. ORDER

BONNER COUNTY, IDAHO, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Roland Harter’s Motion in Limine. Dkt. 66. On August 5, 2019, the Court held oral argument on the Motion. The Court verbally explained its ruling on the record during the hearing and now issues the following order memorializing its decision. II. DISCUSSION Under controlling Ninth Circuit caselaw, the issue of back pay—and front pay—is for the Court to determine, not a jury. Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005) (“there is no right to have a jury determine the appropriate amount of back pay under Title VII . . . . Instead, back pay remains an equitable remedy to be awarded by the district court in its discretion.”).1 Additionally, by statute, evidence of

1 To be sure, in order to determine back pay “A trial court, sitting in equity, may nevertheless employ an advisory jury. The ultimate decision, however, rests with the court.” Traxler v. Multnomah Cty., 596 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Lutz, 403 F.3d at 1069). collateral source payments/benefits (if any) is admissible “to the court after the finder of fact has rendered an award.” Idaho Code § 6-1606 (emphasis added). In short, the Court will not allow the parties to present evidence of PERSI benefits to the jury during trial in this matter. That said, the Court will allow the parties to discuss PERSI benefits outside the presence of the jury to aid the Court in determining back pay and front pay. Expert testimony—and argument by the parties—will also be necessary 1n order to determine whether Harter’s PERSI benefits are, or are not, a collateral source—which the Court will determine after trial. II. ORDER 1. Harter’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 66) is GRANTED as outlined above.

ee DATED: August 12, 2019 © / dseePD mail □ = Least Chiet US District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ROLAND HARTER Case No. 2:16-cv-00546-DCN Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND v. ORDER

BONNER COUNTY, IDAHO, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Roland Harter’s Motion in Limine. Dkt. 66. On August 5, 2019, the Court held oral argument on the Motion. The Court verbally explained its ruling on the record during the hearing and now issues the following order memorializing its decision. II. DISCUSSION Under controlling Ninth Circuit caselaw, the issue of back pay—and front pay—is for the Court to determine, not a jury. Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005) (“there is no right to have a jury determine the appropriate amount of back pay under Title VII . . . . Instead, back pay remains an equitable remedy to be awarded by the district court in its discretion.”).1 Additionally, by statute, evidence of

1 To be sure, in order to determine back pay “A trial court, sitting in equity, may nevertheless employ an advisory jury. The ultimate decision, however, rests with the court.” Traxler v. Multnomah Cty., 596 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Lutz, 403 F.3d at 1069). collateral source payments/benefits (if any) is admissible “to the court after the finder of fact has rendered an award.” Idaho Code § 6-1606 (emphasis added). In short, the Court will not allow the parties to present evidence of PERSI benefits to the jury during trial in this matter. That said, the Court will allow the parties to discuss PERSI benefits outside the presence of the jury to aid the Court in determining back pay and front pay. Expert testimony—and argument by the parties—will also be necessary 1n order to determine whether Harter’s PERSI benefits are, or are not, a collateral source—which the Court will determine after trial. II. ORDER 1. Harter’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 66) is GRANTED as outlined above.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harter-v-bonner-county-idaho-idd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack