Spooner v. Town of Topsham

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a jury judgment finding that the Town of Topsham violated Vermont's age-discrimination statute by failing to hire James Spooner as road foreman. The court rejected challenges concerning admission of an investigator's testimony, alleged improper statements by plaintiff's counsel, and the calculation of damages, including mitigation, front pay, undeclared income, and attorney's fees.

Holdings

1. A party must make a specific and timely objection and obtain a ruling when evidence is offered unless the trial court has made a definitive pretrial ruling admitting the evidence; the trial court made no such definitive ruling here, so the Town failed to preserve its claim.
2. The trial court acted within its broad discretion in admitting the investigator's testimony because the selectmen's answers were probative and the limited prejudicial effect of revealing the investigation did not substantially outweigh their probative value.
3. In a civil case, claims concerning statements to which no contemporaneous objection was made, or to which an objection was sustained without a request for further relief, are waived and are not reviewable for plain error absent the limited circumstances involving a fundamental right or liberty interest.
4. The jury was not required to offset the damages award for alleged undeclared income where the evidence did not establish the amount, relevant time period, or expenses associated with that income.
5. The employer bears the burden of proving failure to mitigate damages by showing both that suitable work existed and that the employee did not make reasonable efforts to obtain it; the Town failed to meet that burden.
6. A front-pay award is permissible when the period is reasonable and not too speculative, and the jury's award satisfied that standard based on the economist's testimony concerning Spooner's expected employment duration.
7. The damages verdict was not clearly erroneous merely because the jury asked about attorney's fees; absent evidence that the jury included attorney's fees, the verdict would not be disturbed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing an Attorney General's investigator to testify concerning statements made by Town selectmen during an age-discrimination investigation.
2. Whether the Town preserved claims concerning allegedly improper statements by Spooner's counsel during voir dire, opening statement, and closing argument.
3. Whether the jury's damages award was clearly erroneous because it allegedly failed to account for undeclared income, failure to mitigate, an allegedly excessive front-pay period, or attorney's fees.

Disposition

affirmed