Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOYSE HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4069 SI

[DRAFT] INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY

The parties are hereby notified that the Court intends to give the following instructions in this

matter. A conference concerning their content will be conducted later this week. The Court will

entertain other instructions jointly proposed by the parties.

Dated: June 18, 2007 ________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 1 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOYSE HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4069 SI

INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 3 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DUTIES OF JURY TO FIND FACTS AND FOLLOW LAW

Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence and the

arguments of the attorneys, it is my duty to instruct you on the law which applies to

this case. A copy of these instructions will be available in the jury room for you to

consult if you find it necessary.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts

you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you

whether you agree with it or not. You must not be influenced by any personal likes or

dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case

solely on the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath promising to

do so at the beginning of the case.

In following my instruction, you must follow all of them and not single out

some and ignore others; they are all equally important. You must not read into these

instructions or into anything the court may have said or done any suggestion as to

what verdict you should return – that is a matter entirely up to you.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 4 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of:

(1) the sworn testimony of any witness;

(2) the exhibits which have been received into evidence; and

(3) any facts to which the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits

received into evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider

them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you:

(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are

not witnesses. What they have said in their opening statements, closing arguments,

and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. 

If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them,

your memory of them controls.

(2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a

duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules

of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on

it.

(3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been

instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition, some

testimony and exhibits have been received only for a limited purpose; where I have

given a limiting instruction, you must follow it.

(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session

is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 5 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a

fact, such as a testimony by a witness about what the witness personally saw or heard

or did. Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could

find another fact.

You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction

between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for

you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to

believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness

says, or part of it, or none of it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:

(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things

testified to;

(2) the witness’ memory;

(3) the witness’ manner while testifying;

(4) the witness’ interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’ testimony;

(6) the reasonableness of the witness’ testimony in light of all the evidence;

and

(7) any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the

number of witnesses who testify about that fact.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 6 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BURDEN OF PROOF –

PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a

preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that

the claim or affirmative defense is more probably true than not true.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party

presented it.

CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS – FAIR TREATMENT

All parties are equal before the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and

conscientious consideration by you as any party.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 7 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS

Plaintiff Moyse Howard contends that his employer, defendant Amtrak, violated the

prohibitions against racial discrimination and retaliation in employment found in: 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e); the California Fair

Employment and Housing Act (California Government Code § 12940 et seq.); and 42

U.S.C. Section 1981. Plaintiff also contends that his supervisors, defendants Joe

Deely, Steve Shelton and Patsy Hall, violated the prohibition against retaliation in

employment found in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiff also

contends that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. Defendants

deny all of plaintiff’s contentions.

I will now explain the rules which apply to your decision on each of these claims.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 8 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISPARATE TREATMENT—

Plaintiff Moyse Howard has brought a claim of employment discrimination against

defendant Amtrak. The plaintiff claims that his race was a motivating factor for

Amtrak’s decision to terminate him from his management position. Defendant

Amtrak denies that plaintiff’s race played any role in the termination. 

As to this claim, plaintiff Moyse Howard has the burden of proving both of the

following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That defendant Amtrak took an adverse employment action against plaintiff, as

defined below; and

2. That the plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in Amtrak’s decision to terminate

him. 

If plaintiff Moyse Howard has failed to prove either of these elements, your verdict

should be for defendant Amtrak. 

If plaintiff has proved both of these elements, the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict,

even if you find that the defendant’s conduct was also motivated by a lawful reason. 

The plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages if you find that the defendant Amtrak’s

decision was motivated both by race and a lawful reason, unless defendant Amtrak

proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Amtrak would have made the same

decision even if the plaintiff’s race had played no role in the employment decision. 

“ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” DEFINED - DISPARATE

TREATMENT

An action is an adverse employment action if it materially affects the terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment. 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 9 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

RETALIATION—ELEMENTS

Plaintiff Moyse Howard also claims that Amtrak, Joe Deely, Steve Shelton and Patsy

Hall retaliated against him by terminating him from the management position. 

Defendant Amtrak denies that retaliation played any role in the termination. 

To prevail on this claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following

elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That the plaintiff engaged in or was engaging in an activity protected under federal

law, such as complaining of racial discrimination in employment;

2. That defendants subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action, as that is

defined below; and

3. That the protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in causing the

adverse employment action.

If you find that each of the elements on which the plaintiff has the burden of proof has

been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. 

If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove any one of these elements, your

verdict should be for the defendants. 

 “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” IN RETALIATION CASES

An action is an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter a

reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 10 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION 

Plaintiff Moyse Howard claims that Amtrak failed to prevent racial discrimination

and/or retaliation. To establish this claim, plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. That plaintiff was an employee of Amtrak;

2. That plaintiff was subjected to 

 a. discrimination based on race;

or

 b. retaliation because he opposed Amtrak’s unlawful and discriminatory

employment practices; 

3. That Amtrak failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination or

retaliation;

4. That plaintiff was harmed; and 

5. That Amtrak’s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or

retaliation was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 11 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

Plaintiff Moyse Howard claims he was discharged from employment for reasons that

violate a public policy. To establish that claim, plaintiff must prove all of the

following:

1. That plaintiff was employed by Amtrak; 

2. That Amtrak discharged plaintiff;

3. That racial discrimination and/or plaintiff’s complaining about racial discrimination

in employment was a motivating factor for plaintiff’ discharge; and

4. That the discharge caused plaintiff harm.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 12 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DAMAGES—PROOF

It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By instructing

you on damages, the Court does not mean to suggest for which party your verdict

should be rendered.

If you find for the plaintiff on his claims for race discrimination, retaliation, failure to

prevent discrimination, or wrongful termination, or any of them, you must determine

the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a

preponderance of the evidence. Damages means the amount of money which will

reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for any injury you find was caused by

the defendant. You should consider the following:

--The mental or emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss

of enjoyment of life experienced by Moyse Howard. 

The plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence,

and it is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved.

Your award must be based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or

conjecture.

In calculating damages, you may not consider lost earnings or future lost earnings,

sometimes called back pay or front pay. The award of back pay or front pay, should

you find Amtrak liable, will be decided and calculated by the Court. Likewise, you

must not consider, or include as part of any award, attorney fees or expenses that

plaintiff incurred in bringing this lawsuit; should you find Amtrak liable, those

matters will be decided and calculated by the Court. 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 13 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MITIGATION

The plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate

means to avoid or reduce damages.

The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages, and

(2) the amount by which damages would have been mitigated.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 14 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

If you find for the plaintiff, you may, but are not required to, award punitive damages. 

The purposes of punitive damages are not to compensate the plaintiff, but to punish a

defendant and to deter a defendant and others from committing similar acts in the

future.

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that punitive damages should be awarded, and

the amount, by a preponderance of the evidence. You may award punitive damages

only if you find that defendant’s conduct was malicious, oppressive or in reckless

disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will,

or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring another. Conduct is in reckless disregard

of the plaintiff’s rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to

the plaintiff’s safety and rights, or the defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk

that its actions will violate the plaintiff’s rights under state or federal law. An act or

omission is oppressive if the person who performs it injures or damages or otherwise

violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary harshness or severity, such as by

the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the taking advantage of some

weakness or disability or misfortune of the plaintiff.

If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, you must use reason in setting the

amount. Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient to fulfill their

purposes but should not reflect bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In

considering punitive damages, you may consider the degree of reprehensibility of the

defendant’s conduct and the relationship of any award of punitive damages to any

actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff.

While you may consider similar acts towards others in determining the

reprehensibility of Amtrak’s conduct, you cannot punish Amtrak for harm to others

who are not parties to the litigation. In other words, the amount that you award, if

any, must bear a reasonable relation to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, and only the

plaintiff. 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 15 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOMINAL DAMAGES

The law which applies to this case authorizes an award of nominal damages. If you

find for the plaintiff but you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove damages as

defined in these instructions, you must award nominal damages. Nominal damages

may not exceed one dollar.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 16 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DUTY TO DELIBERATE

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as

your presiding juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you

here in court.

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you

can do so. You verdict must be unanimous.

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after

you have considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and

listened to the views of your fellow jurors.

Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you

should. Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right.

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only

if each of you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not

change an honest belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a

verdict.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 17 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

USE OF NOTES

Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took notes,

you should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your

memory. You should not be overly influenced by the notes.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 18 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you

may send a note through Tracy, signed by your presiding juror or by one or more

members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with

me except by a signed writing; and I will communicate with any member of the jury

on anything concerning the case only in writing, or here in open court. If you send out

a question, I will consult with the parties before answering it, which may take some

time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any

question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone – including me – how the jury

stands, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or

have been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 19 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

RETURN OF VERDICT

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous

agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to

you, sign and date it, and advise the court that you are ready to return to the

courtroom.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 183 Filed 06/18/07 Page 20 of 20