McFann v. Denver Health: Colorado Court Awards Back Pay and Front Pay After Retaliation

Kimberly McFann brought claims against Denver Health and Hospital Authority under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Her claims arose after Denver Health rescinded its job offer for a Biostatistician III position. The offer was extended on May 11, 2022, and accepted the next day. McFann resigned from her prior employment and prepared to start work on June 12, 2022. Before her start date, she requested accommodations related to health concerns and later asked to delay her start date.

Denver Health changed her start date to July 3, 2022, but rescinded the offer on June 30, 2022. McFann brought discrimination and retaliation claims. A jury found in favor of Denver Health on discrimination but found for McFann on retaliation, awarding $150,000 in compensatory damages. The court then held proceedings to determine back pay and front pay.

Findings Relevant to Back Pay

The court evaluated testimony, documentary exhibits, employment records, and wage information to determine the financial effects of the rescinded job offer.

The court found that:

• McFann was unemployed from June 30, 2022, through March 27, 2023.

• She applied for 64 jobs during this unemployment period.

• She began working for ThermoFisher/PPD on March 27, 2023, earning $116,000 per year.

• She was later laid off in May 2024.

• She was still unemployed at the time of the court’s July 2024 hearing.

To calculate back pay, the court compared McFann’s projected Denver Health earnings with her actual earnings for 2022, 2023, and part of 2024. The court accepted evidence showing anticipated raises and pay periods at Denver Health and the earnings she received during intermittent employment.

The result was a back pay award of $130,226.56. The court then applied an 8 percent pre-judgment interest rate, resulting in $15,099.47 in interest and a total back pay award of $145,326.03.

Findings Relevant to Front Pay

The court next considered whether reinstatement was appropriate. Based on the circumstances, it determined that reinstatement was not feasible. It therefore considered front pay to compensate McFann for future lost earnings caused by the retaliatory rescission.

The court evaluated:

• McFann’s age (61 at the time of the hearing).

• Her work life expectancy (through approximately age 67).

• Her qualifications and extensive experience in biostatistics.

• The time it took her to find employment after the rescission (approximately nine months).

• Her efforts to maintain employability, including updating technical skills and seeking professional coaching.

• The realistic time she might need to reestablish her position in the job market.

Taking these factors into account, the court determined that an 18-month front pay period was appropriate. It calculated:

• Twelve months at a base salary of $139,000 (the salary range for a Biostatistician III).

• Six months at the same salary with a 4.86 percent wage adjustment based on national wage trends.

The resulting future earnings totaled $211,877.70. After applying a 1.93 percent discount rate to calculate present value, the court awarded $205,890.02 in front pay.

The Court’s Decision

The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that McFann was entitled to both back pay and front pay. It awarded:

• $130,226.56 in back pay.

• $15,099.47 in pre-judgment interest.

• $205,890.02 in front pay.

A separate judgment would formalize the awards in combination with the jury’s verdict.

Assistance With Labor and Employment Matters

If you’ve experienced issues involving workplace retaliation, discrimination, hiring decisions, or wage-related disputes, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles labor and employment matters. Reach out to our team through our contact page to learn how our team can assist with your claim.