Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069-23/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOYSE HOWARD, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION dba AMTRAK; 

STEVE SHELTON; 

PATSY HALL; and 

JOE DEELY,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4069 SI

SPECIAL VERDICT

The parties are hereby notified that the Court will provide the following form of special verdict

to the jury. 

Dated: June 27, 2007 ________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 200 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 4
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, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION dba AMTRAK; 

STEVE SHELTON; 

PATSY HALL; and 

JOE DEELY,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4069 SI

SPECIAL VERDICT

We, the jury in the above entitled action, find the following for our special verdict:

DISPARATE TREATMENT

Question No. 1: Did plaintiff Moyse Howard prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in the decision by any of the following defendants to remove

plaintiff from his management position as Oakland Crew Base Manager? (Note: if you answer “yes”

for one or more of the individual defendants, you must also answer “yes” for defendant Amtrak.)

Steve Shelton Yes __________ No __________

Patsy Hall Yes __________ No __________

Joe Deely Yes __________ No __________

Amtrak Yes __________ No __________

If all the answers to Question No. 1 are “no,” please proceed to Question No. 3 . If any part of answer

to Question No. 1 is “yes,” please answer the next question.

Question No. 2: Did defendant Amtrak prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have

made the same decision to remove plaintiff from his management position as Oakland Crew Base

manager even if plaintiff’s race played no role in the employment decision?

Yes __________ No __________

Please answer the next question.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 200 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Question No. 3: Did plaintiff Moyse Howard prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he

engaged in activities protected under federal law, such as complaining of racial discrimination in

employment or participating in a proceeding, such as a trial, in which discrimination was an issue? 

Yes _________ No __________

If the answer to Question No. 3 is “yes,” please answer the next question. If the answer to Question

No. 3 is “no,” please proceed directly to Question No. 6.

Question No. 4: Did plaintiff Moyse Howard prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of

these protected activities were motivating factors in the decision by any of the following defendants to

remove plaintiff from his management position as Oakland Crew Base Manager? (Note: if you answer

“yes” for one or more of the individual defendants, you must also answer “yes” for defendant Amtrak.)

Steve Shelton Yes __________ No __________

Patsy Hall Yes __________ No __________

Joe Deely Yes __________ No __________

Amtrak Yes __________ No __________

If all the answers to Question No. 4 are “no,” please proceed to Question No. 6. If any part of answer

to Question No. 4 is “yes,” please answer the next question.

Question No. 5: Did defendant Amtrak prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have

made the same decision to remove plaintiff from his management position as Oakland Crew Base

manager even if plaintiff’s protected activities played no role in the employment decision?

Yes __________ No __________

Please go to the next question.

FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION

Question No. 6: [NOTE: If your answer to Question No. 2 was “yes” or blank, and your answer to

Question No. 5 was “yes” or blank, do not answer any further questions; instead, go to the end of this

form, and sign and date it where indicated. Otherwise, please answer this question.] Did plaintiff

Moyse Howard prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Amtrak failed to take reasonable steps

to prevent the discrimination or retaliation against him?

Yes __________ No __________

If your answer to Question No. 6 is “no,” please proceed to Question No. 8. If your answer to Question

No. 6 is “yes,” please answer the next question.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 200 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Question No. 7: Did plaintiff Moyse Howard prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Amtrak’s

failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination or retaliation against him was a substantial

factor in causing plaintiff’s removal from his management position as Oakland Crew Base Manager?

Yes __________ No __________

Please answer the next question.

DAMAGES

Question No. 8: What amount of damages, if any, did plaintiff Moyse Howard prove were caused by

defendants’ actions?

Past economic loss, including lost back pay $_______________

Non-economic damages $_______________

Please answer the next question.

Question No. 9: Did plaintiff Moyse Howard prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the

conduct of any of the below listed defendants was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of his

rights, as those terms are defined in these instructions?

Steve Shelton Yes __________ No __________

Patsy Hall Yes __________ No __________

Joe Deely Yes __________ No __________

If you answered “yes” to any part of Question No. 9, please answer the next question. Otherwise, go

to the end of this form, and sign and date it where indicated.

Question No. 10: Did Amtrak prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, both that it made a good faith

effort to comply with federal laws prohibiting discrimination and that the individual defendant’s actions

were contrary to Amtrak’s good faith efforts to comply with such federal laws? 

Yes __________ No __________

Dated: _______________

___________________________________

FOREPERSON

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 200 Filed 06/27/07 Page 4 of 4