Issues in Employment Litigation Analysis

  • Thomas Roney
  • Timothy Lanning


This chapter reviews the factors typically considered by forensic economists calculating economic damages in employment matters. While there is overlap with the analysis carried out in personal injury cases, employment matters involve some different considerations. The past loss period may differ from the time between employment termination and trial. The plaintiff’s loss of projected compensation is confined to earnings with the defendant employer. All post-termination compensation may not qualify as mitigation. The future loss period is not simply the remaining worklife, but may be shorter, if the plaintiff is assumed to re-attain eventually the earnings expected from the defendant employer. There may be adverse tax consequences of receiving a lump-sum verdict compared to the taxes that would have been owed if the earnings were taxed year-by-year.


Displace Worker Earning Loss Loss Period Employment Case Employment Matter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baum II, C. L. (2013). Employee tenure and economic losses in wrongful termination cases. Journal of Forensic Economics, 24(1), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum II, C. L. (2015). Employee tenure and economic losses in wrongful termination cases: A reply to Nicholas Coleman. Journal of Forensic Economics, 26(1), 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Zion, B. (2000). Neutralizing the adverse tax consequences of a Lump-Sum Award in employment cases. Journal of Forensic Economics, 13(3), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowles, T. J., & Chris Lewis, W. (1996). Taxation of damage awards: Current law and implications. Litigation Economics Digest, 2(1), 73–78.Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, N. (2015). A comment on ‘Employee tenure and economic losses in wrongful termination cases’. Journal of Forensic Economics, 26(1), 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Couch, K. A. (1998). Late life job displacement. The Gerontologist, 38(1), 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Couch, K. A., & Placzek, D. W. (2010). Earnings losses of displaced workers revisited. American Economic Review, 100(1), 572–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couch, K. A., Jolly, N. A., & Placzek, D. W. (2009). Earnings losses of older displaced workers: A detailed analysis with administrative data. Research on Aging, 31(1), 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleming, J. G. (1983). The collateral source rule and contract damages. California Law Review, 71, 56–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons, R., & Katz, L. F. (1991). Layoffs and lemons. Journal of Labor Economics, 9(4), 351–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ireland, T. R. (2010). Tax consequences of lump sum awards in wrongful termination cases. Journal of Legal Economics, 17(1), 51–73.Google Scholar
  12. Ireland, T. R. (2012). Possible damage elements in wrongful termination litigation: Back pay, front pay, and lost earning capacity. Journal of Legal Economics, 18(2), 93–105.Google Scholar
  13. Kletzer, Lori G., & Robert W. Fairlie. (1999). The long-term costs of job displacement among young workers. Department of Economics, University of California Santa Cruz, July 1997, Revised January 1999. [Funded under contract no. 41USC252C3 from the U.S. Department of Labor].Google Scholar
  14. Nicholson, Kristin A., & Charles M. North. (2004). Unemployment duration under wrongful discharge law. Baylor University, Working Paper #055, 1–32.Google Scholar
  15. Ostrofe, N., Roney, T., & Kirwin, D. (2012). Factors to consider when estimating economic damages from a wrongful termination. The Earnings Analyst, 12, 63–88.Google Scholar
  16. Rodgers, J. D. (2003). Handling taxes in employment law cases. Journal of Forensic Economics, 16(2), 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roney, T. (2012). Estimating duration of economic damages in wrongful termination cases; recent literature on duration and magnitude of earnings losses from job loss. Journal of Legal Economics, 18(2), 107–127.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Economic news release 8/26/2014, Displaced workers technical note.Google Scholar


  1. Alfredo Villacorta, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Cemex Cement, Inc., Defendant and Appellant, 221 Cal. App. 4th 1425; 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 441. (2013).Google Scholar
  2. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 132 L.Ed.2d 294, 115 S.Ct. 2159. (1995).Google Scholar
  3. Dashnaw v. Pena, 304 U.S. App. D.C. 247; 12 F.3d 1112. (1994).Google Scholar
  4. Hutchins v. DirecTV Customer Service, Inc., et al, 0:14-cv-35733, 9th Cir. (2014).Google Scholar
  5. O’Neill v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 108 F. Supp. 443, E.D. Pa. (2000).Google Scholar
  6. Sears v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, 749 F.2d 1451, 10th Cir. (1984).Google Scholar
  7. Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc., 137 F.3d 944, 7th Cir. (1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Roney
    • 1
  • Timothy Lanning
    • 2
  1. 1.Thomas Roney LLCDallasUSA
  2. 2.Formuzis, Pickersgill & Hunt, Inc.Santa AnaUSA

Personalised recommendations