Cloutier v. GoJet Airlines, LLC
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
357 F. Supp. 3d 675 (2019)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Pilot John Cloutier (plaintiff) sued his former employer, GoJet Airlines, LLC (GoJet) (defendant), alleging that GoJet terminated him because of his disability, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cloutier sought backpay compensating him for lost wages between his termination and the time of judgment. GoJet argued that backpay should be significantly reduced because Cloutier failed to properly mitigate his damages. In 2014, Cloutier was offered a job with Republic Airways (Republic). However, Cloutier did not accept the offer because it required him to execute a promissory note agreeing to pay Republic $25,000 if he left the company within two years. In 2015, Cloutier began working for SkyWest at a rate lower than his GoJet compensation. In April 2017, when Cloutier’s suit had been pending for 17 months, GoJet offered to reinstate Cloutier to his former captain position with the same compensation and benefits. The offer did not require Cloutier to drop his ADA action. However, it required Cloutier to complete the Federal Aviation Administration training program, unless he received exemptions. Cloutier, who cared for a disabled son, would have struggled to be away from home for the three-to-four-week training period. Additionally, if Cloutier returned to GoJet, he would be working under the people whose prior conduct was the basis of his ongoing suit. Cloutier declined GoJet’s offer. Based on the evidence, GoJet argued that backpay should be reduced by the amount Cloutier earned at SkyWest and the amount he could have earned at Republic from 2014 to 2015. GoJet further argued that Cloutier could not recover backpay after May 2017 because he rejected the reinstatement offer. The district court considered GoJet’s arguments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

