## Facts

- David Minshall, an on-air investigative reporter at KMGH-TV in Denver, worked for the station from 1980 until the station declined to renew his contract on March 10, 1997, when he was over age 50.
- After a new news director, Melissa Klinzing, took over in the mid-1990s, the station pursued programming and staffing changes aimed at attracting a younger audience.
- During this period, multiple on-air employees over age 40 were reassigned, removed, terminated, or not renewed, supporting Minshall’s claim of an age-related staffing pattern.
- In August 1996, instead of a typical renewal, Klinzing renewed Minshall’s contract for only six months and warned in writing that further renewal depended on improved performance.
- The employer cited performance issues including a 1995 public drunkenness incident at an Emmy Awards ceremony, a breach of an agreement to protect an anonymous source, and repeated lateness in completing assignments.
- During the six-month renewal, the employer claimed Minshall missed morning meetings, failed to pitch new story ideas, and barely met deadlines.
- At the end of the renewal, the station declined to renew Minshall’s contract; Minshall contended the stated reasons were pretext and that age-driven staffing goals motivated the decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of intentional age discrimination under the ADEA and Colorado law, such that denial of judgment as a matter of law was proper.
2. Whether the evidence supported the jury’s willfulness finding and resulting liquidated damages, as well as the back-pay award without a mitigation reduction and the front-pay award.
3. Whether asserted instructional or evidentiary errors required a new trial or alteration of the judgment.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Minshall.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find age was a determinative factor in the non-renewal decision.
- The court upheld the willfulness finding and liquidated damages equal to back pay.
- The court affirmed the back-pay award and the jury’s determination that Minshall reasonably mitigated his damages.
- The court affirmed the district court’s front-pay award, treated as an equitable remedy with the jury’s front-pay figure considered advisory.
- The court found no prejudicial instructional or evidentiary error and no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial or altering the damages and fee awards.

## Legal Principles

- After a full jury trial in an ADEA case where the employer has offered nondiscriminatory reasons, appellate review focuses on whether sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding of intentional discrimination, viewing the record in the verdict-winner’s favor and without reweighing credibility.
- ADEA liability may be inferred from combined circumstantial and direct evidence, including age-related remarks or goals, a pattern of adverse treatment of older employees, and evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were pretext.
- An ADEA violation is willful if the employer knew its conduct was prohibited or acted with reckless disregard as to whether it was prohibited; a willfulness finding permits liquidated damages.
- Back pay may be reduced for failure to mitigate only if the evidence shows the plaintiff did not exercise reasonable diligence to obtain comparable employment; the mitigation question is fact-bound.
- Front pay is an equitable remedy committed to the district court’s discretion; appellate review is for abuse of discretion and turns on the evidentiary basis for future loss and employment prospects.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld a jury verdict that a television station’s non-renewal of an over-50 investigative reporter was motivated by age, and it affirmed willfulness and the resulting remedies—back pay without a mitigation reduction, liquidated damages, and court-ordered front pay—while rejecting claimed trial errors and challenges to the district court’s discretionary rulings.


Minshall v. McGraw Hill Broad. Co., 323 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2003)