A Jury Awarded Her $300,000. The Appeal Court Agreed. (Kathleen slot)
A maintenance supervisor for an airline asked her whether she liked being restrained in the bedroom. She reported it. The company’s own investigation didn’t fix it.
A jury believed her anyway. Two million dollars in punitive damages. Emotional distress damages on top, later capped by statute at $300,000 combined.
The airline appealed.
The appeal lost too.
Here’s the part most people miss. Winning the verdict and winning the appeal are two different fights, and the second one is where employers try to chip away at the number, arguing the employee should have done more, sooner, to reduce her own damages.
Mitigation. That’s the word.
The employer argued the jury should have been told she had a duty to mitigate her emotional distress, the same way she’d have a duty to look for a new job after being fired.
On July 9, 2026, the Fifth Circuit said no. In EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., the court held, for the first time in that circuit, that Title VII plaintiffs don’t have to mitigate emotional distress damages at all.
That ruling binds employers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
California hasn’t decided the same question under its own law.
No California appellate or Supreme Court decision squarely says whether a harassment victim has to mitigate emotional distress damages under FEHA the way she has to mitigate lost wages. It’s an open question, not settled law, not just under-argued.
That gap matters if you’re the one deciding whether to come forward, or the one already fighting for what a jury already said you’re owed.
Don’t let an employer’s confident-sounding mitigation argument sound more settled than it is.
Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine whether you have a claim — and how much of a conversation that takes.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.