Fifth Circuit Rules No Duty to Mitigate Emotional Distress in Title VII Cases

The Fifth Circuit ruled Title VII plaintiffs aren't required to mitigate emotional distress damages.

On July 9, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant decision in EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines that clarifies damage mitigation obligations under Title VII.

The court emphasized a statutory distinction: while Title VII's backpay provisions explicitly require plaintiffs to mitigate damages, its compensatory damages provisions, including those for emotional distress, do not. The opinion stated, "The fact that the statute includes a mitigation requirement for backpay, but not for compensatory damages, signals Congressional intent to exclude a duty to mitigate for compensatory damages."

Additionally, the court examined historical common-law principles and found no well-established duty to mitigate emotional distress damages existed at the time Congress enacted Title VII. This supports interpreting the statute as deliberately omitting such a duty.

This ruling provides new appellate precedent clarifying that Title VII plaintiffs nationwide are exempt from any obligation to reduce emotional distress damages. Employment and labor lawyers should note the distinction between backpay and compensatory damages mitigation requirements when advising clients and assessing potential liabilities.

The decision is poised to influence how damages are calculated in future Title VII cases, potentially affecting settlement strategies and trial outcomes concerning emotional distress claims.

What's next: Legal professionals will watch for how other circuits respond and whether this ruling shapes future judicial approaches to Title VII damages nationwide.