Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 9 Page ID
`#2028
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-347-SMY
`
`GUSTAVO NAVARRETE,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Gustavo Navarrete filed the instant lawsuit against Madison
`
`
`
`County Sheriff’s Office. He filed an Amended Complaint on October 17, 2017, naming Madison
`
`County, Illinois as the defendant and alleging discrimination and retaliatory termination of his
`
`employment based upon his national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
`
`1964. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.1 On June 30, 2021, a jury returned a verdict in favor of
`
`Navarrete and awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages.
`
`Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Equitable Relief (Doc. 122) and
`
`Petition for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 129). Defendant opposes both motions. The Court held an
`
`evidentiary hearing regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Equitable Relief on August 6, 2021, and
`
`admitted various exhibits. The Court also took judicial notice of several exhibits.
`
`Back Pay
`
`Prevailing Title VII plaintiffs are “presumptively entitled to full relief.” Hutchinson v.
`
`Amateur Elec.Supply, 42 F.3d 1037, 1044 (7th Cir. 1994) citing Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody,
`
`422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975). Once the jury has found that there has been employment discrimination,
`
`there is then a presumption that the employee is entitled to back pay. David v. Caterpillar, Inc.,
`
`
`1 Madison County Sheriff’s Department was terminated as a Defendant with the October 17, 2017 filing of the
`Amended Complaint against Madison County, Illinois.
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 9 Page ID
`#2029
`
`324 F.3d 851, 865 (7th Cir. 2003). Back pay is “the difference between actual earnings for the
`
`period and those which she would have earned absent discrimination by defendant.” Horn v. Duke
`
`Homes, Div. of Windsor Mobile Homes, Inc., 755 F.2d 599 ,6060 (7th Cir. 1985). Back pay covers
`
`the period from the time of firing to the date of judgment. See David, 324 F.3d at 865. Back pay
`
`is then reduced by interim earnings, “wages (or the like) earned by a discriminated upon employee
`
`in the period after his discharge but before judgment that, but for the discrimination, would not
`
`have been earned.” Chesser v. State of Ill., 895 F.2d 330, 337 (7th Cir. 1990). Defendant has the
`
`burden to show that a plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages or that damages are in fact less
`
`than what the plaintiff asserts. Hutchison v. Amateur Elec. Supp., Inc., 42 F.3d 1037, 1044 (7th
`
`Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff seeks back pay of $227,820.00 for 2016 through June 11, 2021.
`
`Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s back pay award should be reduced because he failed to mitigate
`
`his damages.
`
`The evidence shows that Plaintiff earned $63,316.98 in 2015, which was the last full year
`
`of pay that he received; Defendant ceased paying Plaintiff on January 22, 2016. The evidence
`
`further shows that at the time of his termination, Plaintiff was subject to a Collective Bargaining
`
`Agreement (“CBA”) that was in effect from December 1, 2014 until November 30, 2017. Under
`
`the CBA, as a jail officer with 5 to 10 years of experience, Plaintiff was scheduled to have a base
`
`salary of $63,059 in 2016 and $64,484 in 2017. Under a CBA Agreement in effect from December
`
`1, 2017 until November 20, 2020, Plaintiff was scheduled to earn a base salary of $67,953 in 2018,
`
`$71,013 in 2019, and 72,608 in 2020. Because no new CBA went in effect between 2020 and
`
`judgment in this case.
`
`Regarding interim earnings, the evidence shows that Plaintiff found employment with the
`
`National Archives and earned $8,143.67 in 2016. He earned $2,087.00 in 2016 as a self-employed
`
`translator. Then, in 2017, Plaintiff earned $19,730.35 working for the National Archives until he
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 9 Page ID
`#2030
`
`found a higher paying job with the Veteran’s Administration, where he earned $5,031.99 in 2017.
`
`Plaintiff’s earned wages from the VA from 2018 until June 11, 2021 were as follows: $24,885.11
`
`(2018); $29,115.34 (2019); $32,552.00 (2020); and $19,515.84 (2021).
`
`A discharged employee must mitigate damages by using reasonable diligence in finding
`
`other suitable employment. Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198, 1202 (7th Cir.
`
`1989). To support a failure to mitigate theory, an employer “must prove both that the claimants
`
`were not reasonably diligent in seeking other employment, and that with the exercise of reasonable
`
`diligence there was a reasonable chance that the claimants might have found comparable
`
`employment.” E.E.O.C. v. Gurnee Inn Corp., 914 F.2d 815, 818 (7th Cir. 1990). Defendant argues
`
`that Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by failing to exercise reasonable diligence in finding
`
`other suitable employment. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to search for
`
`comparable employment, other than applying for one law enforcement position with Scott Air
`
`Force Base.
`
` Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff could have found other comparable positions or other
`
`positions wherein he would have made more income is not unsupported by the evidence. The
`
`Defendant failed to meet its burden and provide the Court with evidence that comparable law
`
`enforcement jobs that Plaintiff was qualified to hold were available during the relevant period. To
`
`the contrary, the evidence shows: Plaintiff intended on working for the Sheriff’s office until his
`
`retirement at twenty years of service (December 1, 2027); Plaintiff has been unable to find a
`
`comparable job; Plaintiff applied for numerous jobs; Plaintiff was not hired for the security job at
`
`Scott Air Force Base; Plaintiff could not find any other jobs in the field; Plaintiff did find
`
`alternative employment in another field of work; Plaintiff started working within one week of
`
`being terminated by Defendant; Plaintiff transitioned between new jobs for better pay; and, while
`
`Plaintiff’s current job does not provide him with the same pay, duties, field of interest or career
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 4 of 9 Page ID
`#2031
`
`advancement as what he had with Defendant, he is actively receiving wages and working. On this
`
`evidence, the Court will not reduce Plaintiff’s claim for lost wages for failure to mitigate.
`
`Accordingly, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff back pay in the amount of $227,820.00.
`
`Prejudgment Interest
`
`
`
`Prejudgment interest on back pay is awarded to compensate plaintiffs for the loss of the
`
`use of money. Partington v. Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc., 999 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir. 1993).
`
`There is no statutory rate for prejudgment interest. Cement Div., Nat’l Gypsum Co. v. City of
`
`Milwaukee, 144 F.3d 1111, 1114 (7th Cir. 1998). Instead, the rate is to be determined by the Court
`
`with a starting point at market rate (or the average of the prime rate for the years in question). Id.
`
`The prejudgment interest accrues from the date of the loss or that the claim accrued. Am. Nat. Fire
`
`Ins. Co. ex rel. Tabacalera Contreras Cigar Co. v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 325 F.3d 924, 935
`
`(7th Cir. 2003).2
`
`
`
`The evidence presented shows that Plaintiff’s date of loss or the date on which his claim
`
`accrued was January 23, 2016. The Court also finds from the that the monthly Bank Prime Loan
`
`Rate published by the Federal Reserve from 2016 is reasonable. Accordingly, the Court
`
`AWARDS prejudgment interest on the back pay award in the amount of $57,252.00.
`
`Lost Benefits
`
`An award of back pay should also include an award for lost benefits. Pollard v. E.I. du
`
`Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843, 847-848 (2001) (holding that back pay includes lost
`
`benefits). Lost benefits include sick leave, health insurance, and pension loss. See Graefenhain,
`
`870 F.3d at 1212 (pension loss is a compensable item in order to make plaintiff whole); see Mister
`
`v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co., 790 F. Supp. 1411, 1418 (S.D. Ill. 1992) (part of the calculation of
`
`back pay includes the value of work related benefits, like health insurance).
`
`
`2 Defendant does not contest or object to Plaintiff’s calculations for prejudgment interest.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 5 of 9 Page ID
`#2032
`
`Sick Leave
`
`The evidence establishes that Plaintiff had accumulated 363 hours of sick leave at the time
`
`of his wrongful termination. According to Exhibit 41, Plaintiff’s rate of pay was $29.88 per hour.
`
`Therefore, at the time of his termination, Plaintiff had accrued $10,846.44 for sick leave.
`
`Plaintiff’s arguments for additional sick leave time assumes facts not in evidence, and are therefore
`
`speculative. Therefore, the Court AWARDS $10,846.44 in sick leave benefits.
`
`Health Insurance
`
`Plaintiff received 100% of his health insurance premiums and 70% of his dependents’
`
`health insurance premiums through his employment with Defendant. The evidence demonstrates
`
`that had Plaintiff selected an individual health plan for himself, his premiums would have been
`
`from $116.91 to $123.45 every two weeks for the period of October 1, 2017 to August 1, 2021.
`
`Accordingly, the Court Plaintiff AWARDS $12,300.00 for past health insurance premiums.
`
`
`
`As compensation for future health insurance premiums, Plaintiff seeks a biweekly rate of
`
`$123.00 from August 1, 2021 through December 1, 2027. In support, Plaintiff presented
`
`undisputed evidence that he intended on working through December 1, 2027 before retiring.
`
`Accordingly, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff $21,525.00 for future health insurance
`
`premiums.
`
`Pension
`
`The Court
`
`takes
`
`judicial notice of
`
`the Life Table
`
`identified as Exhibit 60
`
`(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-1-508.pdf). Plaintiff would have been 66
`
`years of age at his intended retirement on December 1, 2027. According to the Life Table, his life
`
`expectancy at retirement was 17.3 years. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to 17
`
`years of pension benefits.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 6 of 9 Page ID
`#2033
`
`
`
`The Court further takes judicial notice of the bases for calculation Plaintiff’s pension
`
`benefits from the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF), VA pension, VA Thrift Savings
`
`Plan, and IMRF Liquidation. As a result, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff $482,067.00 for his total
`
`pension loss.
`
`Front Pay
`
`
`
`Front pay may be awarded under Title VII in cases where reinstatement is unavailable.
`
`Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc., 137 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir. 1998). Here, it is undisputed that
`
`reinstatement is not an available option.
`
`
`
`Front pay is the “discounted present value of the difference between the earnings an
`
`employee would have received in his old employment and the earnings he can be expected to
`
`receive in his present and future, and by hypothesis, inferior employment.” Williams, 137 F.3d at
`
`953. Front pay is designed to extend for a reasonable period of time, until a date by which a
`
`plaintiff, using reasonable diligence, should have found comparable employment. Id. quoting
`
`Ward v. Tipton County Sheriff Dep’t, 937 F. Suppl. 791, 796 (S.D. Ind. 1996); see also Shick v.
`
`Illinois Dept. of Hum. Servs., 307 F.3d 605, 614 (7th Cir. 2002). If an employee obtains another
`
`job, those earnings are deducted from front pay. Shick, 307 F.3d at 614.
`
`Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to front pay because of his failure to mitigate
`
`damages and find comparable employment. However, as previously found, Defendant’s argument
`
`is unsupported by any evidence.
`
`
`
`As previously noted, the evidence was uncontradicted that Plaintiff intended on working
`
`for the Sheriff’s office through his retirement on December 1, 2027. Thus, the time period the
`
`Court will consider for front pay is from June 2021 to December 2027. As the evidence supports,
`
`Plaintiff would have earned $36,304 (1/2 of 2021); $72,608 (2022); $73,845 (2023); $74,464
`
`(2024); $74,464 (2025); $74,464 (2026); and, $68,255 (through December 1, 2027). During that
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 7 of 9 Page ID
`#2034
`
`same period, the evidence shows that Plaintiff has now earned or will earn $17,343 (1/2 of 2021);
`
`$36,163 (2022); $36,163 (2023); $37,293 (2024); $37,293 (2025); $38,423 (2026); and, $35,221
`
`(through December 1, 2027). Those amounts shall be deducted from any front pay award.
`
`Accordingly, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff front pay in the amount of $238,687.00.
`
`Reduction of Sick Leave Loss, Health Insurance Loss, Pension Loss and Front Pay Award
`to Present Value
`
`The application of the net discount rate applies to health insurance loss, pension loss, and
`
`
`
`
`front pay awards. The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit 62, the Consumer Price Index, and
`
`Exhibit 63, the U.S. Department of Treasury Daily Treasury Long Term Rate Data. As the Court
`
`finds no difference in the value of money from now to the future, it agrees with Plaintiff that 0%
`
`is an appropriate discount rate based upon the gold standard for measuring inflation and current
`
`yield on 20-year treasury notes.
`
`Tax Component Award
`
`
`
`The tax component award is an additional offset in Title VII discrimination cases to make
`
`a plaintiff whole and offset any increased tax burden incurred as a result of receiving a lump sum
`
`award. E.E.O.C. v. N. Star Hospitality, Inc., 777 F.3d 898, 904 (7th Cir. 2015). The Court takes
`
`judicial notice of the Tax Tables submitted as Exhibit 68 and finds that the evidence presented
`
`regarding the increase in Plaintiff’s tax bracket from 22% to 32% is reasonable and rational based
`
`upon the lump sum of unpaid back wages that Plaintiff will receive totaling $227,820.00. Plaintiff
`
`would not have exceeded the 22% tax bracket if he had received the wages in the appropriate years.
`
`However, he will now have a one-time increased tax burden due to receiving the lump sum award.
`
`The Court AWARDS Plaintiff the difference in tax liability; $22,782.00.
`
`The Court AWARDS Plaintiff the total sum of $1,073,279.44 as equitable relief.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 8 of 9 Page ID
`#2035
`
`Attorneys’ Fees
`
`
`
`Finally, Plaintiff has petitioned for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
`
`5(k), which allows the prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees including expert fees as part of
`
`the costs. Defendant’s objections pertain only to (1) an alleged double-billed entry for September
`
`4, 2018 and (2) unrecoverable expenses.
`
`
`
`With respect to the alleged double-billed entries for September 4, 2018, the entries include:
`
`“Deposition of Lakin” for 2.5 hours and “Prepared for and took Lakin Deposition” for 6.2 hours.
`
`Defendant’s position that these two entries reflect a “double-billed” entry for that date is
`
`speculative at best. The affidavit submitted by Attorney Paul T. Slocomb indicates that the time
`
`reflected in the itemized billing reflects the time that he worked on the file. Further, for each
`
`deposition taken in this matter, there are two entries on the itemized billing. Based on the
`
`supporting affidavit and documentation, the Court finds the entry for September 4, 2018 reasonable
`
`and appropriate.
`
`
`
`Second, Plaintiff seeks to recover the following expenses: three hotel rooms for trial
`
`($960.45), food during trial ($36.52), and mileage expenses for Paul Slocomb and Matt Hoffman
`
`($105.28 and $264.32). Defendant objects and asserts that reimbursement for travel, lodging, and
`
`subsistence are not reimbursable. However, the standards for fee awards under Title VII are the
`
`same as those under the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act (42 U.S.C. §1988). Proctor v.
`
`Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 795 F.2d 1472, 1478 (9th Cir. 1986). With respect
`
`to attorney travel expenses, the Seventh Circuit has established that “expenses of litigation that are
`
`distinct from either statutory costs or the costs of the lawyer’s time reflected in hourly billing rates
`
`– expenses for such things as postage, long distance phone calls, xeroxing, travel, paralegals and
`
`expert witnesses – are part of the reasonable attorney’s fees allowed by the Civil Rights Attorney
`
`Fees Award Act.” Downes v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 41 F.3d 1132, 1144 (7th Cir. 1994)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00347-SMY Document 135 Filed 03/27/25 Page 9 of 9 Page ID
`#2036
`
`citing Heiar v. Crawford County, 746 F.2d 1190, 1203 (7th Cir. 1984). Since attorney travel
`
`expenses are normally billed separately from an attorney’s hourly fees, those expense are
`
`separately recoverable. Id. However, attorney meals are generally not recoverable. See generally
`
`42 U.S.C. §1988; see generally Fields v. City of Chicago, 2018 WL 253716, at *11 (N.D. Ill.
`
`2018). Accordingly, the Court finds the costs of the hotel room339s for trial and mileage expenses
`
`are reasonable and appropriate, but the costs for food during trial are not recoverable.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and
`
`AWARDS attorneys’ fees in the amount $68,025.00 and reduced costs in the amount of
`
`$4,039.45.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATE: March 27, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STACI M. YANDLE
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`9
`
`