Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01357/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01357-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Longmont United Hospital
Appellee
Janis Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JANIS SMITH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LONGMONT UNITED HOSPITAL, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT 11 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1357 

(D.C. No. 88-S-546) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral _argument would not materially 

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

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

In this Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action, 

29 u.s.c. SS 621-34, plaintiff appeals from the district court's 

denial of her motion for a new trial, asserted following a jury 

verdict in favor of defendant. This court reviews a district 

* 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: 90-1357 Document: 010110090810 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 1 
court's decision on a new trial motion under an abuse of 

discretion standard. See Patty Precision Prods. Co. v. Brown & 

Sharpe Mfg. Co., 846 F.2d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 1988). After 

consideration of plaintiff's appellate arguments, we determine 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the motion for new trial. 

Plaintiff, who was born in 1925, began working for defendant 

in 1970 as a chemist in defendant's pathology lab. In 1972, 

defendant promoted plaintiff to chief technologist and, in 1975, 

plaintiff assumed the newly created position of administrative 

technologist. As administrative technologist, plaintiff 

supervised the daily operation and management of the pathology 

lab. Plaintiff received satisfactory performance evaluations. 

In 1986, defendant eliminated the position of administrative 

technologist and refused to hire plaintiff for any other position 

in the pathology lab. Plaintiff asserted that defendant 

unlawfully terminated her employment on the basis of plaintiff's 

age. Defendant asserted that plaintiff's position as 

administrative technologist was eliminated as a cost-cutting 

measure, following an efficiency study of the hospital conducted 

by an independent consultant. Defendant further asserted that the 

consultant 

technologist 

technologist 

save money. 

consolidate 

technologist, 

recommended plaintiff's duties as administrative 

be consolidated with the duties of the chief 

in order to enhance the hospital's efficiency and 

Defendant followed the consultant's recommendation to 

these positions, appointing the younger chief 

rather than plaintiff, to fill the newly 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1357 Document: 010110090810 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 2 
consolidated position because plaintiff had failed to maintain her 

practical skills as a lab technician, skills which would be 

requir by the new position, during the eleven years plaintiff 

had held her administrative position. Plaintiff asserted 

defendant's claims were only a pretext for terminating her 

employment on the basis of her age. 

On appeal, plaintiff asserts five issues challenging the 

district court's denial of her motion for a new trial . 

Plaintiff's first three arguments challenge evidentiary rulings: 

1) the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion in limine 

through which plaintiff sought to exclude any reference to the 

employee at will doctrine; 2) the trial court erred in restricting 

the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness; and 3) the trial 

court erred in allowing into evidence a defense exhibit which 

defendant failed to include in the pretrial order. This court 

will disturb the trial court's evidentiary decisions only upon a 

showing of an abuse of discretion. See Denison v. Swaco 

Geolograph Co., No. 90-6021, slip op. at 16 (10th Cir. Aug. 16, 

199l)(decision to admit exhibit not listed in pretrial order); 

United States v. Alexander, 849 F.2d 1293, 1301 (10th Cir. 

1988)(decision to admit or exclude evidence); Karns v. Emerson 

Elec. Co., 817 F.2d 1452, 1459 (10th Cir. 1987)(decision to admit 

or exclude expert's testimony). Review of the record fails to 

indicate that the district court abused its discretion concerning 

these evidentiary matters. 

Lastly, plaintiff challenges the district court's charge to 

the jury. Plaintiff first argues that the district court erred in 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1357 Document: 010110090810 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 3 
failing to instruct the jury using plaintiff's proposed jury 

instruction concerning the economic savings derived from 

discharging older employees: "Economic savings derived from 

discharging older employees cannot serve as a legitimate 

justification under the [ADEA] for an employment selection 

criteria." Although plaintiff asserts that evidence adduced at 

trial supported giving this instruction, plaintiff has failed to 

provide us with a sufficient record to allow us to determine 

whether the trial court should have given such an instruction. 

Gelof v. Papineau, 648 F. Supp. 912, 921 (D. Del. 

1986)(employer specifically indicated one of principal reasons for 

terminating ADEA plaintiff was high cost of employing her, which 

would have increased when plaintiff's pension vested), aff'd in 

part, vacated in part on other grounds, 829 F.2d 452 (3d Cir. 

1987). Due to the lack of record, we cannot consider plaintiff's 

argument. United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F.2d 902, 

906 n.1 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 837 (1990). 

Plaintiff next argues that the district court erred in 

instructing the jury concerning defendant's need to present 

evidence that age was not the reason for its decision to terminate 

plaintiff's employment. "Instructions must be considered as a 

whole and particular instructions and requests for instructions 

are to be considered in the framework of the entire charge." 

Cannon Oil & Gas Well Serv., Inc. v. Evertson, 836 F.2d 1252, 1256 

(10th Cir. 1987)(quoting Weqerer v. First Commodity Corp., 744 

F.2d 719, 723 (10th Cir. 1984)). 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-1357 Document: 010110090810 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 4 
• 

In reviewing the instructions, 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 duties to 

determine these issues.'" 

Patty Precision Prods., 846 F.2d at 1252 (citations omitted); see 

also Cannon Oil, 836 F.2d at 1256. Further, no particular form of 

an instruction is required as long as the instruction, as a whole, 

conveys a correct statement of the applicable law. See , ~, 

Furr v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1549 (10th Cir. 

1987) . 

Assuming the district court used the challenged language to 

instruct the jury, 1 

we are not convinced that this instruction was 

erroneous. Even if it was erroneous, however, viewing the jury 

charge as a whole, the error was neither substantial nor 

prejudicial. See Cannon Oil, 836 F.2d at 1256. 

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court's rulings, 

considered as a whole, required the district court to grant 

plaintiff a new trial. In light of our resolution of plaintiff's 

other appellate arguments, this argument also lacks merit. See 

Denison, No. 90-6021, slip op. at 21. 

1 The parties disagree over the language the district court 

used to instruct the jury on this point. Plaintiff asserts that 

it is now impossible to establish the exact language employed by 

the district court because the instructions have been destroyed. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-1357 Document: 010110090810 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 5 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado denying plaintiff's motion for new trial is 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-1357 Document: 010110090810 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 6