Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04021/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04021-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

KENNETH KEENER PLAINTIFF 

 

VS. Case No. 04-CV-4021

DOMTAR INDUSTRIES, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Kenneth Keener’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the

Verdict and/or Motion for New Trial. (Doc. 55). Defendant Domtar Industries, Inc. (“Domtar”)

has responded. (Doc. 57). The Court finds this motion ripe for consideration and, for the

following reasons, finds the motion should be denied.

Keener argues in his motion that the jury ruled against him because any relief granted

might cause conflicts with union employees. Keener argues that the proper standard is whether

an accommodation to Keener would cause an undue hardship to Domtar and not to its

employees. Keener also argues that the collective bargaining agreement entered into evidence

indicates that federal law must be followed. Keener requests a new trial because the jury

apparently found that Domtar failed to accommodate Keener and the collective bargaining

agreement requires Domtar to adhered to federal law. 

Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary

basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the prevailing party and giving the prevailing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences. 

Wash Solutions, Inc. v. PDQ, Mfg., Inc., 395 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2005). “Judgment as a matter of

law is appropriate when the record contains no proof beyond speculation to support a verdict.”

Id. A court may grant a new trial when the first trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice, through

a verdict against the weight of the evidence, an excessive damage award or legal errors at trial. 

Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472 (8th Cir. 1996).

 

Case 4:04-cv-04021-HFB Document 58 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

The Court finds that Keener has not met his burden of showing that a new trial is

appropriate or that he is entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or as a matter of law. 

The evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support a reasonable jury’s verdict in

Domtar’s favor. Further, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, the verdict does

not result in a miscarriage of justice and Keener has failed to elaborate on the legal errors he

believes the Court committed or the evidence that would support a jury verdict in his favor. 

Keener’s motion essentially speculates to the jury’s thought process in coming to its decision

Upon consideration, for the foregoing reasons the Court finds the Motion for Judgment 

Notwithstanding the Verdict and/or Motion for New Trial (Doc. 55) should be and hereby is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2006.

 /s/ Harry F. Barnes 

Hon. Harry F. Barnes

U.S. District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04021-HFB Document 58 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>