alt.lawyers

sethb@ (Seth) wrote:
> Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>>
>>Less mitigation of damages, of course.
>
> Is that so? It almost happened to me.
>
> I was offered a job at $80,000 base salary, with guaranteed
> first-year total pay of $130,000. I didn't take it; I later found
> out that six months later, the company shut down that department
> and laid everybody off. If I had taken the job, my impression is
> that I would have received $90,000 (the layoffs were before the
> bonus date).

If the total pay for the year was guaranteed at $130,000, that should
have been the amount they would owe you, irrespective of bonus date.

> Would that have been reduced by the amount I earned elsewhere in
> the remaining half year? That would certainly distort my
> incentives.

If you lost that job and then found another one immediately that had
the same or higher pay, you really had no damages. So yes, the amount
you would receive would be reduced by what else you earned during the
same year as the original contract.

And not only would it be reduced by what you did earn, but also by
what you reasonably could have earned. You are not allowed to sit on
the couch and watch soap operas for the rest of the year and just
collect your pay. You have to go out and look for a replacement job.

Stu