Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30390/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30390

EDWINA F. FIELDS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:11-CV-101

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Edwina Fields sued her former employer, DefendantAppellee Department of Public Safety (DPS), for hostile work environment 

based on sexual harassment. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict 

awarding Fields damages. The district court initially entered judgment for 

Fields on the verdict, but later vacated the judgment upon DPS’s motion to 

vacate because of an inconsistency between the general verdict and the special 

answers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(b)(3).

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30390 Document: 00513622088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2016
No. 15-30390

2

Fields now appeals and argues that it was error for the district court to 

grant DPS’s motion to vacate on the basis of an inconsistency in the verdict

because, among other reasons, DPS forfeited its right to vacate the judgment 

when it failed to object to the verdict at the time the verdict was returned and 

before the jury was dismissed. See Stancill v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 497 

F.2d 529, 534–35 (5th Cir. 1974) (“By failing to object to the form of the verdict 

and answers at the time they were announced by the jury, both parties waived 

any objection to inconsistencies under Rule 49(b).”). In Stancill, we reasoned 

that when an objection pursuant to Rule 49(b) could have been made prior to 

the jury’s dismissal, failure to make the objection waives a Rule 49(b) challenge 

to the jury verdict and judgment because an objection made prior to the jury’s 

dismissal would have allowed the district court to “return the jury for further 

consideration of its answers and verdict.” Id. at 535; accord Diamond 

Shamrock Corp. v. Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd., 791 F.2d 1416, 1422–23 (10th Cir. 

1986) (agreeing with the reasoning in Stancill and holding that failure to 

“object to the jury verdict on the alleged ground of inconsistency constituted a 

waiver of such contention on appeal”); see also id. (collecting cases in accord

with Stancill from the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh circuits).

Because DPS could have but failed to object to alleged inconsistencies in 

the jury verdict before the jury was dismissed and the judgment entered, we

REVERSE and REMAND for reinstatement of the $120,000 compensatory 

damages award1 and judgment in Fields’s favor.

 

1 Fields does not appeal the district court’s vacatur of the $120,000 punitive damages 

award.

 Case: 15-30390 Document: 00513622088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2016