BUONANNO v. AT&T BROADBAND, LLC
313 F.Supp.2d 1069 (2004)
Albert A. BUONANNO, Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T BROADBAND, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.
No. 02-MK-778 (CBS).
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
April 2, 2004.
James Parker Rouse, Sr., Rouse & Associates, PC, Greenwood Village, CO, for Plaintiff.
Martha Ellen Cox, Paul Justin McCue, Sherman & Howard, Denver, CO, for Defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWKRIEGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court following a multi-day bench trial. Having considered the evidence presented and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. By separate document, the Court enters judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, Albert A. Buonanno (Buonanno or the Plaintiff) and against the Defendant, AT&T Broadband, LLC (AT&T or the Defendant).
I. JurisdictionIn this action, the Plaintiff brings a single claim — religious discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. He asserts two theories: (i) direct religious
discrimination; and (ii) failure to accommodate his religious beliefs or practices. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 II. FactsThe parties
1. Much of the trial testimony touched upon Buonanno's reluctance to "value" the particular behavior of homosexuality. However, the subject of homosexuality was apparently never addressed (other than between Buonanno and Dunn in a private conversation) at any time prior to Buonanno's termination. With the exception of mentioning "neo-Nazi skinheads" in the meeting with Batliner, all communication regarding Buonanno's religious beliefs referred to his general unwillingness to "value" conduct that was condemned by the Bible.
2. Buonanno testified that, if her were employed by AT&T, it would pay for schooling if "it was going towards your, you know — your degree or within the company." This can be interpreted consistently with the statement in the Handbook that the company will pay "for career-related undergraduate or graduate studies ... you can use to build your job skills." In other words, the Court understands the policy to provide for reimbursement of education relevant to the employee's actual work duties.
3. In addition to calculating these raw figures, Buonanno's expert also computed totals discounted to present value as of February 1, 2001 based on various assumptions. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will calculate damages based on the raw, undiscounted figures.
4. AT&T's expert did not specifically testify as to the assumptions underlying his calculations. It appears that he has used the same projected AT&T salary figures as Buonanno's expert namely, 3.5% annual raises but has a different and unexplained method for calculating Buonanno's projected salary as a mental health counselor.
5. Arguably, circulating a memo noting the revision to all AT&T employees might involve some costs in photocopying and distribution, but the Court would consider such costs to be de minimis.
6. AT&T's expert's calculations include a column reflecting "pre-separation benefits" and "post-separation benefits." The "pre-separation benefits" column corresponds roughly to Buonanno's expert's calculations of 401(k) matching contributions loss. There was no testimony or other evidence to explain the figures in the "post-separation benefits" column, and thus, the Court disregards it.
7. As a general rule, absent a statute mandating compounding of interest, simple interest will be used. Quinlan v. Koch Oil Co., a Div. of Koch Industries, Inc.,25 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir.1994). Title VII contains no requirement of compound interest. 8. Buonanno's expert reduced his economic losses to present value as of the date of February 1, 2001. She did not offer an economic explanation for doing so, stating only that she had been instructed to do this by attorneys in other cases. Although it is appropriate to reduce future losses to present value so that they may be paid today, there is no reason to continue to reduce them to a point further in the past where no payment was made.
9. This is also the rate used by Buonanno's expert to discount backpay earnings from the date of trial to their present value as of February 1, 2001. As such, the Court finds it to accurately reflect current economic conditions.