Know When To Fold ‘Em: Court Calls Employer's Bluff On Mitigation

Ever since the Supreme Court's ruling in the now-famous (at least in employment circles) Evans v. Teamsters case, employers have had a new "weapon" at their disposal in wrongful dismissal cases: mitigation.  Mitigation of damages, in the context of a wrongful dismissal, is the reduction of one's damages through alternate employment.  Briefly, a dismissed employee has a duty to mitigate his or her damages by searching for alternate employment; any mitigation that is achieved is subtracted from any damage award for reasonable notice.  Further, if the Court finds that appropriate mitigation efforts were not made, or ignored, the Court can also reduce the damage award.

While the obligation to mitigate has long existed in wrongful dismissal cases, Evans broke new ground when the Supreme Court pronounced that the obligation to mitigate goes so far as to require a dismissed employee to even accept alternate employment with the same employer.  This was seen in some circles