Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60075/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60075-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60075

JIMMY FORD, 

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 3:99-CV-435

Before KING, JOLLY, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After reviewing the trial record, we conclude that the jury had sufficient

evidence to support its verdict and its award of compensatory and punitive

damages.

The determinative question presented in this appeal is straightforward —

whether the evidence supports the verdict of the jury.

There was substantial evidence that Mr. Ford was a long-time employee

who had received overwhelmingly positive evaluations throughout his entire

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 18, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-60075 Document: 00511056071 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2010
No. 09-60075

 The defendant argues for the first time on appeal that this was not protected activity, 1

but insofar as the district court may have erred, the error was plainly not plain.

2

career with the defendant. His level of performance earned him routine and

healthy bonuses. But then one day in his fifteenth year of employment, he was

involved in an EEOC investigation that displeased his boss and, according to his

testimony, he was verbally berated and immediately punished with loss of

prestige and responsibility. After he filed his own EEOC charge, he was denied

his routine bonus — the only employee not to receive one — and was fired when

the litigation commenced. 

Now, the defendant asserted its reasons for hostility shown against Mr.

Ford, unrelated to the EEOC investigation, and argues that under the

circumstances, Mr. Ford’s participation in the investigation was not protected

activity under Title VII. But the circumstances can be looked at in two (or more)

different ways, including the view that Mr. Ford was punished for failing to

impede the investigation by kicking the EEOC agent out of the room, as his boss 1

suggested. Moreover, if the jury chose, the timing of the adverse consequences

to Mr. Ford in this case could be seen as especially telling of truth and of the

actual motives for animus toward him, both in connection to the EEOC

investigation and the EEOC charge, as well as to the amended charge.

Now, the defendant argued to the jury and to us that the motive for denial

of bonuses, the hostile attitude and the ultimate discharge was only personal —

not illegal — because the new boss (who had been around a long time) had

always been possessed of a low opinion of Mr. Ford and was out to get him for

non-illegal reasons. That argument indeed is supported by some evidence and

even by admissions of Mr. Ford. But in the final call — because of substantial

evidence on both sides — it was up to the jury, and to the jury alone, to decide

what factor or factors motivated the discrimination against Mr. Ford. And in

 Case: 09-60075 Document: 00511056071 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2010
No. 09-60075

 We feel compelled to observe that, for no reason that is in the record, nor for any

2

reason offered by the district court in response to the mandamus finally filed by Mr. Ford, the

district court sat on the verdict for six and one half years before it entered judgment. It is

truly regrettable that the plaintiff has been denied his just recovery for these several years by

the lack of judicial diligence. Indeed, it was only after a mandamus petition had been filed

that the district court took any action. This is not the first time such inexcusable delays have

occurred in that court. We urge the court to be more responsive and responsible to its duties

and to the litigants. We once again encourage the district court to ask for assistance when it

is unable to timely fulfill its judicial obligations.

3

making the call, the jury rejected the defendant’s account of the reasons for what

happened.

The same is true for punitive damages — the disputed evidence, its nature

and characteristics, was for the jury to sort out. One supportable view of that

evidence is that defendant’s conduct, especially when timed with the EEOC

investigation and his EEOC charge, was knowing, willful, and even evincing of

malice, when weighed against the long, loyal and unblemished service that Mr.

Ford claimed, notwithstanding that there was also some evidence of charitable

attitudes, expressed apologies and generous severance pay. The defendant’s

evidence could have persuaded the jury to accept the defendant’s side, but it did

not; the jury sided with Mr. Ford.

The final word is that this appeal was purely, totally and always a jury

case. The jury decided and we AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 2

AFFIRMED; MANDATE ISSUED FORTHWITH.

 Case: 09-60075 Document: 00511056071 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2010