The employee did not, however, succeed in winning back
pay and placement in a GS-15 position, and so appealed
the decision on the grounds that the district court had
abused its discretion, according to opinion 04-5061 from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
The employee alleged that the court erred as a matter
of law by determining that the employer would not have
promoted him to either of the two GS-15 positions in
the absence of retaliation, after deciding not to
instruct the jury on the same issue under the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, the decision said.
It said he also claimed the court abused is discretion
because in denying him back pay and advancement, it
failed to consider the deterrent purpose of the Civil
Rights Act and erred in finding that the employer
would not have promoted him barring retaliation.
However, the court held that denying the employee
back pay and advancement did not prevent appropriate
equitable relief.
