March 21st, 2016
Sources of income that are considered to be from collateral sources will normally not reduce the amount of otherwise allowable back and / or front pay. Hamlin v. Charter Tp. of Flint, 165 F.3d 426, 422-33 (6th Cir. 1999). The general policy of the courts is to prevent “double recovery.” E.E.O.C. Inc. v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279, 297 (2002). Whether income from other sources is considered non-collateral and will be deducted from back pay awards often depends upon the statutory claims involved in the case. Examples include State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (2005), 105 Ohio St.2d 476, 482-83 (back pay award reduced by SERS retirement benefits but not social security benefits); Hawley v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 958 F.2d 720, 726 (6th Cir. 1992) (deducting pension benefits from back pay award in ADEA case); Hance v. Norfork Southern Ry. Co., 571 F.3d 511, 520 (6th Cir. 2009) (earnings from a second job providing a supplemental income do not offset the amount of back pay owed); Rasimas v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 628 (6th Cir. 1983) (unemployment compensation benefits should not be deducted from Title VII back pay awards); Thurman v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 90 F.3d 1160, 1171 (6th Cir. 1996) (no reduction for unemployment compensation and workers compensation in Title VII back pay awards); Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. David Richard Ingram, D.C., Inc. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 89, 92 (unemployment compensation benefits not interim earnings to be deducted from back pay award pursuant to R.C. § 4112.05(G)); Merkel v. Scovill, Inc., 570 F.Supp. 141, 148 (S.D. Ohio 1983) (deducting unemployment compensation benefits from ADEA claim is necessary to prevent double recovery); State ex rel. Guerreo v. Ferguson (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 6, 7 (back pay award for wrongful exclusion of public employee must be reduced by amount of unemployment compensation).