## Facts

- Michael Thomas, a Black male originally from Grenada (West Indies), worked for Resort Health Related Facility as a personal care attendant from June 1975 until February 5, 1980.
- On February 5, 1980, Resort suspended Thomas pending a psychiatric evaluation, citing workplace conflict involving a nurse.
- Thomas obtained and submitted a psychiatric evaluation favorable to him, but Resort rejected it and insisted that he be examined by a specific physician; Thomas refused and did not return to work.
- Thomas sued Resort and several supervisory employees, alleging employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and sex, and seeking reinstatement, injunctive/declaratory relief, back pay, and damages for emotional harm.
- After the lawsuit was filed, the parties engaged in settlement discussions during which Resort made an unconditional offer to reinstate Thomas; the offer did not purport to settle liability or waive Thomas’s claim to back pay already accrued.
- Thomas rejected the reinstatement offer.
- Before trial, defendants moved (a) to strike Thomas’s jury demand or, alternatively, to bifurcate liability and damages; (b) for partial summary judgment limiting back pay after Thomas rejected reinstatement and, if necessary, to disqualify counsel as potential witnesses about the offer; and (c) to dismiss sex and national-origin theories under Title VII and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

## Issues

1. Whether Thomas was entitled to a jury trial given the mix of Title VII and § 1981 claims and requests for legal and equitable relief.
2. Whether the court should bifurcate liability and damages for trial.
3. Whether Thomas’s rejection of an unconditional offer of reinstatement cut off any further accrual of back pay under Title VII’s mitigation doctrine.
4. Whether evidence of the reinstatement offer, made during settlement discussions, was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 when offered to limit back pay rather than to prove liability.
5. Whether counsel should be disqualified under the lawyer-as-witness rule based on potential testimony about the reinstatement offer.
6. Whether Thomas could pursue sex and national-origin discrimination under § 1981 and whether those theories could proceed under Title VII.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to strike the jury demand.
- The court denied defendants’ alternative request to bifurcate liability and damages.
- The court granted partial summary judgment limiting any back pay award to the period ending on the date Thomas rejected defendants’ unconditional reinstatement offer.
- The court ruled that the reinstatement offer could be considered for the limited purpose of mitigation/back pay and was not barred by Rule 408 on that use.
- The court denied the motion to disqualify counsel, finding disqualification unjustified on the showing made.
- The court dismissed the sex-discrimination claims and limited any national-origin theory to Title VII (not § 1981).

## Legal Principles

- When a plaintiff brings both equitable Title VII claims and legal claims under § 1981 seeking compensatory damages, the Seventh Amendment preserves a jury right on the legal claims and common factual issues.
- Under Title VII, back pay is subject to mitigation; an unconditional offer of reinstatement generally cuts off back pay from the date of an unreasonable rejection, absent a sufficient justification for refusing reinstatement.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 408 does not exclude settlement-related evidence when it is offered for a purpose other than proving liability or the amount of the claim, such as showing failure to mitigate damages.
- Disqualification of counsel under the lawyer-as-witness rule is an exceptional remedy and requires a clear showing that counsel’s testimony is necessary and unavailable from other sources.
- Section 1981 addresses race-based discrimination in contracting and does not provide a cause of action for sex discrimination or for national-origin discrimination as such; national-origin claims, if supported, proceed under Title VII.

## Conclusion

Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility resolved key pretrial motions in a Title VII/§ 1981 employment-discrimination suit: the court preserved Thomas’s jury right on the legal components of the case, refused to bifurcate trial, capped back pay at the date he rejected an unconditional reinstatement offer (treating the offer as admissible for mitigation despite its settlement context), denied attorney disqualification, dismissed the sex-discrimination claims, and confined any national-origin theory to Title VII rather than § 1981.


Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility, 539 F. Supp. 630 (1982)