Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho, No. 2:2016cv00546 - Document 75 (D. Idaho 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Harters Motion in Limine (Dkt. 66 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (alw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harter v. Bonner County, Idaho Doc. 75 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ROLAND HARTER Case No. 2:16-cv-00546-DCN Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. 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). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 in order to determine whether Harter’s PERSI benefits are, or are not, a collateral source—which the Court will determine after trial. III. ORDER 1. Harter’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 66) is GRANTED as outlined above. DATED: August 12, 2019 _________________________ David C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
