Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-07081/USCOURTS-ca10-94-07081-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry L. King
Appellant
Unocal Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

. FILED 

Uruted States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 0 1995 

TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER --------------- Clerk 

JERRY L. KING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

UNOCAL CORPORATION, a California 

corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 94-7081 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CV-93-704-P) 

Submitted on the briefs:* 

Stephen D. Colbert, Colbert Law Offices, Ardmore, Oklahoma, for 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

David W. Lee and Gayla I. Fields, Lee, Collins & Fields, P.C., 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District 

Judge.** 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate recorq, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

** The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 94-7081 Document: 01019279882 Date Filed: 06/30/1995 Page: 1 
Appellant Jerry L. King appeals from a jury verdict in favor 

of Appellee Unocal Corporation alleging error in the instructions 

submitted to the jury. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 and dismiss the appeal. 

We glean the following facts from Appellee's supplemental 

appendix.1 In February 1977, Appellant, an African-American male, 

began working for Appellee as a Production Technician in Carter 

County, Oklahoma. In July 1992, Appellant was injured on a 

company golf outing and notified Appellee of his injury pursuant 

to § 24.2 of the Oklahoma Worker's Compensation Act, Okla. Stat. 

tit. 85, § 24.2. In September 1992, Appellee fired Appellant 

during a company-wide restructuring. 

In September 1993, Appellant sued Appellee for alleged 

unlawful employment practices. Specifically, Appellant alleged 

Appellee discriminated against him, and ultimately terminated him 

based upon his: (1) race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2; 

(2) physical disability, in violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act ( 11 ADA 11 ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-14; and (3) lawful 

exercise of rights under Oklahoma's Worker's Compensation Act, in 

violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 85, §§ 5-7. 

The parties consented to have a United States Magistrate 

Judge try the case. The trial commenced in May 1994 and resulted 

in a jury verdict in favor of Appellee on all issues. This appeal 

followed. 

1 Appellant did not provide us with a transcript or other 

portion of the record detailing the facts. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-7081 Document: 01019279882 Date Filed: 06/30/1995 Page: 2 
On appeal, Appellant contends the magistrate judge improperly 

instructed the jury on issues not relevant to his ADA claim. 

Specifically, Appellant contends the magistrate judge erred by 

instructing the jury on the meaning of "reasonable accomodation," 

"undue hardship," "essential functions," and "threat to the health 

and safety of others" because none of these terms were relevant to 

issues and evidence presented to the jury in the instant case. 

When reviewing a claim that the court improperly instructed 

the jury, "'we consider all the jury heard, and from the 

standpoint of the jury, decide not whether the charge was 

faultless in every particular, but whether the jury was misled in 

any way and whether it had understanding of the issues and its 

duty to determine these issues.'" Considine v. Newspaper Agency 

Corp., 43 F.3d 1349, 1365 (lOth Cir. 1994) (quoting'Resolution 

Trust Corp. v. Stone, 998 F.2d 1534, 1549 (lOth Cir. 1993)). "An 

error in jury instructions will mandate reversal . . only if the 

error is determined to have been prejudicial after reviewing the 

record as a whole." Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc., 11 F.3d 1559, 

1564 (lOth Cir. 1993); see also Shamrock Drilling Fluids. Inc. v. 

Miller, 32 F.3d 455, 459 (lOth Cir. 1994) ("We review the jury 

instructions as a whole, in light of the record . ."). 

Thus, in order to review an alleged error in the court's 

admission or exclusion of a jury instruction, we must have a 

proper record before us. See Harris Mkt. Research v. Marshall 

Mktg. and Communications. Inc., 948 F.2d 1518, 1528 (lOth Cir. 

1991) (court declines to consider jury instruction challenge "in 

the absence of a record containing those portions of the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-7081 Document: 01019279882 Date Filed: 06/30/1995 Page: 3 
transcript on which the parties rely."). It is the appellant's 

responsibility to provide us with a proper record on appeal. Fed. 

R. App. P. lO(b) (2); Yarrington v. Davies, 992 F.2d 1077, 1080 

(lOth Cir. 1993). The appellant must "order and provide all 

portions of the transcript necessary to give the court of appeals 

a complete and accurate record of the proceedings insofar as such 

proceedings relate to the issues raised on appeal." lOth Cir. R. 

10.1. In a case involving a jury instruction challenge, the 

appellant must submit "a copy of the pages of reporter's 

transcript at which the . instruction . . and any necessary 

objection are recorded." lOth Cir. R. 10.3.2. Counsel must "see 

that the record excerpts are sufficient for consideration and 

determination of the issues on appeal and the court is under no 

obligation to remedy any failure of counsel to fulfill that 

responsibility." Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 969 F.2d 977, 979 

(lOth Cir. 1992) (quoting General Order, lOth Cir., October 25, 

1990, p.S). 

Contrary to the clear dictates of lOth Cir. R. 10.1, 

Appellant did not provide us with a transcript or excerpts of the 

proceedings below specifically detailing the evidence adduced at 

trial. As a result, we cannot "consider all the jury heard," 

Considine, 43 F.3d at 1365, and thereby have no way of determining 

whether the court properly submitted the challenged instructions 

to the jury in light of the evidence presented at trial. See 

Miller, 32 F.3d at 460 (court reviews record to determine whether 

jury instruction was warranted in light of the evidence presented 

at trial). Further, Appellant did not comply with lOth Cir. R. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-7081 Document: 01019279882 Date Filed: 06/30/1995 Page: 4 
10.3.2 because he failed to provide us with a copy of the pages of 

transcript containing his objections to several of the challenged 

instructions. Because Appellant did not provide us with a proper 

record, we cannot review his appellate issue. Harris Mkt. 

Research, 948 F.2d at 1528. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal. 

It is so ordered. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-7081 Document: 01019279882 Date Filed: 06/30/1995 Page: 5