A former employee of the liquid waste contractor for the U.S. Energy Department’s Savannah River Site has been awarded $240,107 in front pay she would have earned if the company had not unfairly denied her employment after she was initially laid off.
In addition, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs ruled on Jan. 17 that Savannah River Remediation (SRR) must pay Adrienne Saulsberry $55,118 she had requested in pre-judgment interest – additional dollars that would have accrued on back pay she lost as a result of her termination.
Back pay includes the money Saulsberry would have made between the time of her termination and the ruling in the case, but does not project employment beyond that point. Front pay does project future employment and includes dollars she would have earned from the time of the ruling, to a determined date that Childs deemed fair.
Childs ruled that Saulsberry asked for a fair rate in her request for pre-judgment interest, and that the plaintiff made a strong case regarding why she should receive front pay from the contractor. However, Childs did not award the full $744,543 in front pay the former employee was seeking.
The added money comes after a jury awarded Saulsberry $1.475 million in September in her case against Savannah River Remediation, an AECOM-led company at the Energy Department operation near Aiken, S.C. The seven-figure sum covered $1 million in punitive damages, $55,000 in compensatory damages, and $420,000 in back pay.
Saulsberry, who is African-American, worked at the Savannah River Site for 23 years and was a first-line manager for SRR at the time she was let go in 2013. She sued in August 2016, alleging the contractor wrongfully included her in a DOE-mandated workforce reduction of nearly 500 employees. Saulsberry argued she was terminated for reporting to SRR management a white co-worker who had made racially-insensitive comments.
She also said that, the following year, she was denied reinstatement when she tried to land another job with the contractor. Federal law requires government contractors to give added consideration to rehiring quality employees who have been laid off, but SRR did not even offer Saulsberry an interview.
In September, a jury agreed that race and conspiracy played a role in SRR not rehiring Saulsberry. Childs upheld the jury’s $1.475 million award to the former employee.
On Oct. 25, Saulsberry filed a motion for equitable relief, seeking $55,118 in pre-judgment interest that accrued on the $420,000 in back pay throughout the course of the case. The interest is accrued from the date of loss to the time of the ruling, per U.S. Department of Labor regulations. Each state has a set interest rate, with South Carolina’s being 8.75%.
Saulsberry also requested $203,113 “to offset the negative tax implications on her lump sum back pay award.” In short, she feared the lump sum received would be heavily taxed, and was seeking additional money to offset those potentially high taxes.
Finally, Saulsberry was also seeking $744,543 for the salary she says she would have earned from the time she was let go, until 2035, the year “she would have reached her normal retirement date.
Savannah River Remediation asked Childs to dismiss the motion, saying Saulsberry should not receive front pay based on assumptions about her employment, and should not be able to dictate interest rates.
Childs’ judgment partially favored Saulsberry on two fronts. She concurred with the plaintiff’s position that 8.75% is the standard rate in South Carolina for cases that include opportunities for pre-judgment interest. “Upon careful consideration, the court concludes that the South Carolina statutory rate of 8.75% is an appropriate rate given the circumstances of this case and would not provide either party with a windfall or unjust enrichment,” Childs wrote.
On the front pay issue, Childs wrote: “While the court agrees that some level of front pay is necessary, sixteen years of front pay is not required to make Saulsberry whole.”
Childs, though, completely denied Saulsberry’s request for money to offset the tax implications of a large lump sum. Simply put, she wrote that Saulsberry did not show how the award could negatively impact her in taxes.
The contractor already paid the $1.475 million and has been ordered to pay the $295,225 within 60 days of the order, which would be March 17. A case administrator in Childs’ office would not verify if the contractor has an option to appeal the judgment, or how long it would have to file an appeal.
