On Monday, Judge Timothy Cain ordered BMW to pay an additional $390,000 in back pay to Plaintiff Kelly Dawsey [Read More: Judge Cain’s Order on Economic Damages, Filed April 6, 2026]. You may recall that Mrs. Dawsey won a $5.1 million verdict against BMW on February 25, 2026 after a nearly two week trial in Greenville. I wrote about the verdict [Read More: Greenville Jury Issues a $5.1 Million Verdict Against BMW for National Origin Discrimination] and about my observations of the trial itself [Read More: An Afternoon at a Federal Employment Law Trial]. The Spartanburg Post and Courier also covered the verdict here.
The Court Heard Testimony on the Question of Back Pay and Front Pay
As I wrote back in February, the $5.1 million verdict would ultimately be reduced by the judge down to $300,000, which is the statutory cap on damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After the trial, the judge did just that, issuing an order reducing the compensatory and punitive damages award to $300,000. But that does not end the question about what BMW has to pay Mrs. Dawsey. The parties agreed before the trial that the judge should decide the question of what we call “economic damages,” or money damages connected to loss of pay and benefits. This category of damages includes back pay (lost wages from the termination to the date of trial) and front pay (future lost wages caused by the termination).
On March 13, 2026, the court held a hearing to take testimony on the question of economic damages. Mrs. Dawsey testified that she’d been earning a salary of $202,000/year, plus bonuses and other benefits. After leaving BMW, she held two other jobs, at first making less than what she had made at BMW, though she later began earning more.
The court also heard testimony from Mrs. Dawsey’s expert, who testified as to the calculations of lost wages based on what Mrs. Dawsey had been making at BMW and on how she had earned less than that in the years following. He also presented evidence of front pay, based on how long Mrs. Dawsey would likely work before retirement and how much after retirement. BMW did not present any witnesses or evidence, content instead to cross examine Mrs. Dawsey and the expert.
Ultimately, the judge awarded Mrs. Dawsey back pay in the amount of $390,000. The judge declined to award any front pay, finding that Mrs. Dawsey’s current employment likely would replace all lost income moving forward.
What’s Next for BMW’s Checkbook?
The court still has to rule on several post-trial motions filed by BMW. Once the court issues rulings, then the court will address the final payment due to Mrs. Dawsey and her lawyer, Brian Murphy of Greenville: attorney’s fees. Based on the motion filed so far, Mr. Murphy is seeking at least $409,959.49 in additional attorney’s fees and costs, although that number will increase based on time spent responding to the additional motions filed by BMW. I would expect a ruling on the attorney’s fees in the next few months.
I’ll keep you all updated once the final judgment is entered. But what happens after that? Well, BMW has a right to appeal the verdict, although that final judgment will be accruing interest while the appeal proceeds (not to mention the additional attorney’s fees that would be awarded). Or the parties could reach a private settlement and end the matter altogether. If a private settlement is reached, that amount will be confidential, typically, and the only filing we would see is a dismissal document that gets filed with the court.
Either way, this case continues to offer a meaningful example of the possible damages that companies have to pay in a successful discrimination trial.
