Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03159/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Andrews
Appellee
Lisa Cason
Appellant
John E. Gillen
Appellee
Edward C. Rolfs
Appellee
State of Kansas
Appellee

Document Text:

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cb:uit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LISA CASON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

EDWARD C. ROLFS, in his official ) 

capacity as Secretary of Revenue of) 

the State of Kansas; MARK ANDREWS, ) 

Director, Personnel Services ) 

Bureau, Department of Revenue, ) 

State of Kansas; JOHN E. GILLEN; ) 

STATE OF KANSAS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

A R ..: 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3159 

(D.C. No. 89-2045-V) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff Lisa Cason appeals the district court judgment in 

her civil rights action against defendant supervisors in the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3159 Document: 010110031750 Date Filed: 04/04/1991 Page: 1 
Kansas Department of Revenue. She contends that she was fired 

from her position as a Liquor Control Investigator I on account of 

her race, in violation of 42 u.s.c. §§ 1981 and 1983 and Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 u.s.c. § 2000e. The district 

court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict on Cason's § 

1981 claim. The Title VII and§ 1983 claims were simultaneously 

tried to the court and a jury, respectively. The jury returned a 

verdict for the defendants on the§ 1983 claim, and the district 

court found for the defendants under Title VII. 

Cason challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

the jury verdict on her§ 1983 claim. However, Cason made no 

motion for directed verdict at trial. "Failure to move for a 

directed verdict bars appellate review of the sufficiency of the 

evidence." Brown v. Poland, 325 F.2d 984, 985-86 (10th Cir. 

1963). 

We therefore turn to Cason's challenge of the district 

court's finding that defendants did not discriminate against her 

in violation of Title VII. We will not set aside the district 

court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. 

P . 56(a); Beck v. Quicktrip Corp., 708 F.2d 532, 535 (10th Cir. 

1983). The district court found that Cason's employment was 

terminated because a psychologist's evaluation of tests, which she 

was required to take as a condition of her employment, indicated 

that she was not suited for the particular position--a legitimate 

nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her. IR. tab 49. After 

reviewing the trial record, we do not conclude that the district 

court's findings were clearly erroneous. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3159 Document: 010110031750 Date Filed: 04/04/1991 Page: 2 
Finally, we consider the district court's directed verdict on 

Cason's § 1981 claim. The district court's reading of Patterson 

v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S. Ct. 2363 (1989), is 

consistent with our opinion in Trujillo v. Grand Junction Region! 

Center, No. 89-1376, slip op. at 6-7 (10th Cir. Mar. 25. 1991), 

holding that§ 1981 does not provide a remedy for discriminatory 

discharge. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district 

court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3159 Document: 010110031750 Date Filed: 04/04/1991 Page: 3