Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-13-01652/USCOURTS-ca7-13-01652-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13‐1652

BETTY RUTH NELSON,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

PEGGY HOLINGA KATONA, indi‐

vidually and in her official capacity

as Lake County Auditor, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.

No. 2:10‐cv‐00031‐JVB‐PRC — Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Judge.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 2015 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and RIPPLE, Circuit

Judges.

BAUER,CircuitJudge.  Plaintiff‐Appellant,BettyRuth Nelson

(“Nelson”), a former employee of the Lake County Auditor’s

office, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants‐

Appellees, Peggy Holinga Katona, individually and in her

official capacity as Lake County Auditor, and Lake County

Case: 13-1652 Document: 53 Filed: 02/25/2015 Pages: 3
2 No. 13‐1652

Indiana, individually and severally (“the Appellees”). Nelson

alleged that she was unlawfully terminated from herjob by the

Appellees in retaliation for her political support of Barack

Obama. After a full trial, the court entered judgment against

Nelson in accordance with the jury’s verdict. On appeal,

Nelson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

the jury’s verdict.Because Nelson failedto file anypost‐verdict

motions—a necessary first step for our analysis of the

facts—we affirm.

The issuepresentedforreview is whetherthe jury’s verdict,

rendered in favor of the Appellees, was supported by legally

sufficient evidence. It is well‐settled that this court will uphold

a jury verdict on appeal as long as it is supported by a reason‐

able basis in the record. Pickett v. Sheridan Healthcare, 610 F.3d

434, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). It is equally well‐established that a

party’s failure to comply with Rule 50(b) forecloses any

challenge to the sufficiency ofthe evidence onappeal.Unitherm

Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift‐Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404–07

(2006); Consumer Prods. Research & Design, Inc. v. Jensen, 572

F.3d 436, 437 (7th Cir. 2009). A post‐verdict motion is necessary

because “[d]etermination of whether a new trial should be

granted or a judgment entered under Rule 50(b) calls for the

judgment in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard

the witnesses and has the feel of the case which no appellate

printed transcript can impart.” Cone v. West Virginia Pulp &

Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 216 (1947). Here, not only did Nelson

fail to move for a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a)

at any point before the case was submitted to the jury, she did

not make any motion pursuant to Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 after

the jury returned its verdict. Nelson’s failure to file any post‐

Case: 13-1652 Document: 53 Filed: 02/25/2015 Pages: 3
No. 13‐1652 3

verdict motions precludes herfrom challenging the sufficiency

of the evidence underlying the jury’s verdict. See Unitherm, 546

U.S. at 404. Therefore, we cannot consider Nelson’s claim on

appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-1652 Document: 53 Filed: 02/25/2015 Pages: 3