Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01082/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01082-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT GARDNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-01082-TEH 

ORDER REGARDING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

 

Plaintiff Robert Gardner has moved this Court for a new trial, following an October 

22, 2015 jury verdict for Defendant Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) on all six 

causes of action. Dkt. Nos. 113, 106. FedEx timely opposed, Dkt. No. 118, and the 

motion is currently set for oral argument on March 28, 2016, Dkt. No. 124. 

Gardner argues that the jury’s finding – on two of the six causes of action – that 

FedEx did not subject Gardner to an adverse employment action is “contrary to the 

instructions given by this Court regarding undisputed facts.” Dkt. No. 113 at 2. FedEx 

argues, in part, that “viewed as a whole, it is clear that, even had the jury answered the 

‘adverse employment action’ questions in the affirmative . . . the jury still would have 

found against Gardner by answering the next-following ‘substantial motivating reason’ 

questions . . . in the negative, resulting in the same verdict in favor of FedEx.” Dkt. No. 

118 at 2.1

 FedEx cites no case law to support this argument. 

Assuming the Court agrees with Gardner that the finding of no adverse employment 

action is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, then the Court lacks briefing about 

whether it would be appropriate to speculate about how the jury would have answered the 

questions that followed this incorrect finding. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that each party shall file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages by March 24, 

 

1

 Because the jury answered the “adverse employment action” questions in the negative, 

it did not answer the questions that followed for either of the implicated causes of action. 

Case 3:14-cv-01082-TEH Document 132 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2016. The briefs shall address whether it is appropriate for a court to reach questions that 

the jury never reached, due to the structure of the special verdict form.2

 The briefs shall 

address the propriety of looking to both the jury’s answers to other, similar questions, and 

the propriety of looking to the trial record itself to speculate about how the jury would 

have answered the questions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/17/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

 

2

 The Court is not interested in further briefing on a court’s duty to harmonize a jury’s 

inconsistent answers on a special verdict form. E.g., Gallick v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 

U.S. 108, 119 (1963). The question presented here is different, it is whether and how a 

court should treat unanswered questions on a special verdict form. 

Case 3:14-cv-01082-TEH Document 132 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2