Whether damages should be apportioned among multiple claims for the same damages, and whether pension benefits awarded for a Title VII violation are subject to statutory damages caps

QUESTIONS PRESENTED It is well understood that plaintiffs can and should, for strategic reasons, bring claims under every theory of liability that may apply to a defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff's damages. Likewise, it is well understood that a plaintiff is not entitled to a double recovery even if he prevails on multiple theories of liability. Underlying these clear rules is substantial confusion among the courts regarding whether and how damages should be apportioned per claim, particularly when the claims include one with a damages cap. This case presents a number of questions this Court should answer: 1. When a plaintiff prevails on multiple claims against a defendant for the same damages, what factors determine how or whether the damages are to be apportioned or allocated among the various claims? Does the jury make the determination, or a judge after the verdict is rendered? When one of the theories includes a damages cap and the verdict exceeds the cap, should the award be apportioned to maximize the plaintiff's recovery? 2. Whether the value of pension benefits awarded to a plaintiff for a Title VII violation to compensate for his inability to return to his prior profession are, on the one hand, back pay, front pay, or equitable relief as were available under the pre-1991 statute, or on the other hand, “future pecuniary losses” under the expanded remedies available after the 1991 amendments, and therefore subject to the statutory caps on damages?