NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0239n.06 Filed: May

6, 2008 No. 06-6084 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MARTI N HAL L , J R., P laintif f-App ellee,

v. CI TY OF CL ARKSVI L L E, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE
O P I N I O N

Be for e : B AT CH ELD ER , M OORE, a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. KA RE N NE L S O N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. The City of Clarksville (“ Clarksville”) appea ls the denial of motions for judgment as a matter of law pur suant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 50(a) -(b) , for a new tria l pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 59, and for remittitur. Plaintiff-Appellee Martin Hall, J r., (“H all”) br oug ht suit i n the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tenne ssee f or violations of Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and of the Tenne ssee Huma n Rig hts Ac t, T .C. A. 4- 21 -1 01 e t se q. Th e jur y fo un d th a t r a c e did

no t se rv e a s a

mot ivatin g fa c tor

in Clarksville’s dec ision not t o promote Ha ll to the rank of se rg eant; that Hal l wa s subjected to a

ra c ia lly ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir on me nt; and

that Cla rk sv ill e re ta liate d a g a ins t H a ll f or en g a g ingin protec ted ac tivity . The jury awa rded H all compensatory

damag es in the amount of $100,000 related to his hosti le-wor

k-environme nt claim and $50,000 related to his reta liation c laim. We AF F IRM2

the de nia l of Cla

rk sv ill e ’s re ne we d mo tio n f or jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l aw; mot ion

fo r a ne w tri a l; and motion for re mitti tur. I. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURE A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound At the time of trial, Ha ll had worke d as a de tective f or the Crim i n al I ntel Unit of the Clarksville Poli ce D epar

tment (the “D epar

tment”) for two y ear s. Prior to his curr ent pos ition in the Depa rtment, he wor

ked as a detec tive investigator and be fore that as a F ield TrainingOffic er. The tria l ev i d en ce reve aled a series of conflicts betwe en Ha ll and his coworke rs and supervisors in the De partment, be g inning in the late 1980s and continuing until 2004. The fir st three inc ide nts , o ne of

wh ic h ta rg e te d H a ll, too k p la c e duri ng the la te 19 80 s and e arl y 19 90 s. I n th e la te 19 80 s, Ma

rk Smith, the n a

n o ff ic e r- in- tr a ini ngand

no w the Cla

rk sv ill e Pol ic e Chi e f, re fe rr e d to fellow Af rica n-Amer ican of

fice rs using the der og ator y t erm “ nigg er.” J oint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 399 (Tria l Tr. at 401). A lso in the late 1980s, Offic er John Hunt refe rre d to Africa n-Amer ican office rs us ing the same racial slur as Smith had used. There is no evidence in the rec ord re g arding wh e n H a ll l e arn e d o f t

he se tw o c omm e nts
. The third incident that took pla ce during this e arly period involved an extremely offe nsive
car toon that repre sented Af

rica n-Amer icans a s embodying r acist stere oty pes. Ha ll testified that when he came into work one da y in 1992 or 1993 he e ncounter ed a w hite office r, Michae l Caver, sitti ng at a table waiting to show fellow office rs a rac ially derog atory car toon. Hall felt off

ended by the ca rtoon but did not repor

t it beca use he was new to the job a nd afr aid of the r eper cussions from complaining

. Other employ ees who worke d the s hift also saw the car toon, including one of Hall’s
su pe rv iso rs , L ie ute nan t Go sla ws ki. I nd e e d, Cave r’ s r e po rt a bo ut t he inc ide nt s ta te d th a t L t.3

Goslawski himself s howed the car toon to Hall. The P olice C hief at the t ime, J ohnny Rosson, warned Caver not to bring“off

color mate rial” into the pre cinct an d o rd er ed him to contact another
s u p er v i s o r r ega rd i n g s en s i t i v i t y t ra i n i n g. No ev i d en ce es t ab l i s h es t h at C av er u n d erwe n tt h e t ra i n i n g. A f ur the r s e ri e s of inc ide nts too k pla c e be tw e e n th e la te 19 90 s a nd Ha ll’ s f ili ngof his fi rs t Equal Employ

ment Opportunity

Com mi s s io n ( “ E E O C” ) c o mpla int in J uly 2002. Be g inning in 1998, Hal l’ s fi rs t- lin e su

pe rv iso r L ie ute na

nt C arn e y re pe a te dly

tol d H a ll that he c ou ld n ot r ide wi th h is friend a nd co-w orker , Detec tive Tony Blakely , beca

use Carne y

“d[id] n’t want two blac k detec tives riding toge ther.” J .A. at 271, 330 (Tr ial Tr. at 130, 207) . Hall testified that complaints reg arding him and B lake ly ri din g tog e the r r e a c he d th e n Po lic e Chi e f L a vo y e d H ud g ins

. Another two inc idents during this ti me per iod involved rac ial slurs. L ieutenant Carney made a stateme nt in 2000 that used the initial “N” with re fer ence to Detec tive Blakely

. An employ ee w ho hear d the comment, Jan Morrison, interpre ted the use of the initial as signify ing the word “ nigg er.” J .A. at 355-56 (Trial Tr. at 277-78). Trial testi mony sug g ested that Carney did not experience any discipline, even thoug h the Depa rtment’s off

icial policies provided that the discipline of an of fice r who used r a c ia l s lu

r s c o u ld e xte n d to te r

mi n a ti o n . H a ll d id n o t p r e s e n t an y e v id e n c e at trial reg ardingwhen he beca

me awa re of Carney ’s comment. Another rac ial slur made by

one of H all’s superiors, howeve r, targ eted Hall. Offic er Travis Hisel testified that when Hall came to the shooting rang e a few minut es l ate one day in the s ummer of 2002, Serg eant St eve Post en said: “D amn nig g er, showing up late.” J.A. at 362 (Tria l Tr. at 286). H isel repor ted the c o m m en t t o L ieutenant Ron Knig ht, then head of

the Professional Integ rity Unit (I nterna l Affa irs), and t o C h i ef Smith. Clarksville prese nted no evidenc e at tria l establishing that Knig ht or Smit h took any disciplinary

a c tio n a g a ins t Po ste n. Ha ll t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s a wa re that hi s su

pe rv iso rs had

ma de ra c ia lly4

derog atory

comments ref

ere ncing him and that he “w as upset about it . . . [ an d ] was more upset about the fa ct that the ser g eant . . . didn’t re ceive any ty pe of punishment.” J .A. at 319-20 (Tria l Tr. at 181-82). When Hall was working for the Criminal I ntel Unit in District 3 in late 2001 and e arly 2002, he c a me int o w or

k o ne da y to f ind a no os e ha ng inga t th e fr on t of the bu ild ing , tow ard the ba c k w a ll

w h e r e h e h a d

s e t u p a c o mp u te r

w o r k s tati o n . T h e n o o s e , ma d e o f 5 5 0 c o r d , w a s h an g ing over a pa rt iti on be sid e the c omp ute r a

nd c ou ld be se e n as one wa lke d in the do or wa y . T he no os e hungin
a common ar ea, a

t the computer station whe re H all worke d “[a]ll the time.” J .A. at 315 (Trial Tr. at 177). Ha ll reported the noose to the F eder al Bur eau of I nvestig ation within the first month of
se e ingit. Ha ll did no t mak e a c omp la int wi thi n the De pa rtme nt; he e xpla ine d at tri a l: “ Af te r a ll I had g one throug h of filing the g rieva nces and complaints, there was no wa y Iwas g oing to r eport the
noose as a form of retaliation to the s ame people t hat was reta liating ag ainst me.” J.A. at 316 (Trial Tr. at 178) . Whit e off

icer s testified at trial that they did not perc eive the noose as a sy mbol of rac ial hostili ty b u t r a th e r

a s s ig n if y in g c o w b o y s o r

la s s o s o r a s me r e ly

a k n o tt e d c o r d

. T h e D e p artm ent
e ve ntu a lly

inv e sti g a te d th e no os e ; th e De pa rtme nt’ s u lti ma te re sp on se wa s to c on du c t sensitiv ity t ra i n i n g. I n addition to the incidents that took place be fore J uly 2002, in 2005 a Depa

rtment employ ee circ ulated an email throug hout the Depa rtment involving a rac ist “ joke about a man na

med Ty rone

. . . ref err ing to [him] as nappy head, nappy head, nappy head.” J .A. at 479-80 ( Trial Tr. at 571-72). Whil e the a

bo ve e ig ht inc ide nts —f

our inv olv ing ra c ia l slurs , the ra c ist c art oo n, the rule

a g a ins t r idi ngwi th B lake ly , th e no os e , an d the ra c ia lly de ro g a tor

y e ma il— we re ra c e -b a se d o n th e ir fac e, Ha ll also presente d evidenc e of three disciplinary and investig ative ac tions directed at him that5

a re asonable fac tfind er m i gh t or might not interpr et as motivated by rac e. The first disciplinary incident occ urre d in the spring of 2001. Ha ll owned a busines s t h at s o l d cell phones, pa g ers, a nd
o t h er similar de vices. Onc e whe n an employ ee w as deliver ing a phone, some pe ople nea

r a c lub called the employ ee over to show him how to pr og ram the phone. Other Clar ksville police offic ers who wer e coinc identally monitoring the club for illega l dr ug activity suspected Hall’s employ ee of selling dr ug s. Up on hear ing of

this suspi cion, Hall looked up the e mploy ee on a Depa rtment computer to see if he ha d a criminal rec ord and discovere d that he had no dr ug arr ests on his recor d. Hall su b s e q u e ntl y r e c e iv e d a counse ling state ment disciplining him for using a De partment c omputer
a lle g e dly fo r p e rs on a l be ne fi t. The sec ond disciplinary

incident, in Dec ember 2002, resulted from Hall’s decision to work a day shift instead of his usual eve ning shift to ac commodate a work-r elated c ourt date. Hall testified tha t in s o d o in g h e h a d f

o ll o w e d D e p artm e n t c u s to m an d p r a c ti c e . N e v e rth e le s s , H a ll r e c e ive d a disciplinary

repor t, e ven though another white detec tive who did the same thing two day s befor e had not been similarly

disciplined. The thi r d in c id e n t d id

n o t i n v o lv e d is c ip li n ar

y a c ti o nb u t r a th e r

aninv e s ti g a ti o nta

r g e ti ng Hall that, ac cordingto Hall, lacke d a cr edible evide ntiary basis. Chief Mark Smi t h i n i t i ated an inv e sti g a tio n o f H a ll f

or dr ugde a lin g be g inn ing , p os sib ly , s ome tim e in 2 00 4. A com pl aina nt d id not give Detec tive Hall’s name, but the complainant picked Detective Hall’s pi cture out of a boa rd of pho to g r a

p h s o f p o li c e o f

f ic e r s . T h e c o mp la in an t a ls o g a v e th e n a me an d th e h o me to w n o f the suspected dr

ug -dea ler’s w ife; y et, these w ere incorre ct with r espec t to Detec tive Hall’s wife . The complainant identified the drug dealer’ s car as a Crown Vic having the s ame color as Ha ll’s car , but all detec tives in Clarksville drove unmarke d Crown Vics (thoug h not nece ssarily of the same color).6

Hall testified that he was not selling drug s; that he was not informed of the investigation from the start; that he lea

rned of the i n v es tigation only

near its conclusion; and that he wa s never told the details of the investig ation. Th e re ma ini ngtr ia l e vid enc e c on c e rn s c on fl ic ts b e tw e e n H a ll, his su pe rv iso rs , a

nd his
cowor kers that r elated to Hall’s complaints of ra cial discrimination and his alleg ed insubordination. I n May 2003 , C h i ef Smith called Ha ll and other Af rica n-Amer ican de tectives who ha d filed complaints of discrimination into his office for a mee ting. Ha ll testified that Smi th said: that h e d id

n ’ t c ar e w h a t I d id

. i. e . , H e to ld me h e d o e s n ’ t c ar e if I f il e an EEOC complaint, beca

use then he ’d re spond to it. He didn’t c are if Iwent to the DA’ s office and tried to g et a wa rra nt for his arr est. He didn’t c are , beca use he w ould have to respond to i t
. He d i d n ’t car e if I went to the EEOC, the F BI , or whomeve r, be c a us e he wo uld have to re sp on d to it. He did n’ t c are if Ifi le d a laws uit , b e c a

us e the n h e wo uld

be the on e to r e sp on d to it.

. . . B ut w hat he did care abo ut wa s me sp e a kin g de g ra din g ly

a bo ut t he Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt. J.A. a t 29 9-3 00 (Tr ia l T r. a t 16 1- 62 ). Ha ll t e sti fi e d th a t Smi th t old him no t to make c omp la int s
a bo ut d isc ri min a tio n w hil e he wa s o n d uty . Sm ithte sti fi e d tha t he he ld t he me e tin g wi th t

he purp os e of i nforming both Afric an-A merica n and white office rs t hat they should not pursue persona l ag endas at work. I n 2 00 4 o r 2 00 5, L ieu ten ant Kn ig ht, the n in c ha rg e of the Pr of e ssi on a l Inte g ri ty

Un it, dis tr ibute d a

le tte r t hr ou g ho ut t

he De pa rtme nt ( “ the De pa

rtme nt” ) that su

pp or te d Ch ie f S mith w ith respe ct to the cha

rg es of discr imination aga inst him . Hall f el t t h at t h e re port targ eted him among other e mploy ees a s “making trouble for the Chief,” a lth o u gh i t d i d n o t cite Ha ll by name. J.A. at 317-19 (Tr ial Tr. at 179- 81). An Af rica n-Amer ican of

fice r, Charle s Br ooks, had orig inally written th e le tt e r “ to e s ta b li s h

. . . th a t n o t a ll A f

r ic an A me r ic an s f

e lt th a t w ay

[th a t S mi th

d is c r im in a te d ], and that some of us f

elt that he wa s doing a

g ood job.” J .A. at 502 (Tr ial Tr. at 616). The Direc tor7

of Human Resour ces f

or Clarksville investig ated the le tter at iss ue and disc overe d that L ieutenant Knig ht had circ ulated the letter , which implic i t l y ref ere nced se vera l office rs including Hall. The Di re c tor and the May or of Cla

rk sv ill e inf

or me d Chie f Smith of the le tte r an d ord e re d him to st op its circ ulation, but Sm ith did not s top the distribution of the letter. While L ieutenant Knig ht had spent at least fif teen minutes of on- duty

tim e ci rculating the le tter, and more persona l time doing so, he was not disciplined for c irculating the letter. Ha ll f ile d s e ve ra l g ri e va

nc e s in 20 04 , af

te r he fi le d the se c on d o f t wo EE OC c omp la int s in May 2003. I n May

2004, Hall filed a

g rieva nce r elating to a meetingin which “De puty Chief B ob Davis

. . . Serg eant Denton, Serg eant Mishoe, Captain Br ooks, [and] Captain Gray
. . . t o o kturns taking pot shots at [ Hall], accusing[hi m] of investi gat i ng another detec tive’s ca se.” J.A. at 305 (Tria l Tr. at 167). H all testified that the alleg ation ag ainst him was not true. Hall also filed a g rieva

nce r elating to his response to a c rime sce ne, althoug h the re cord doe s not make clea

r exactly how the g rieva

nce drew a connec tion be tween the incident and alleg ed ra cial dis c ri min a tio n. Se rg e ant Mis ho e c a lle d Ha ll to tel l him to re sp on d to a c ri me sc e ne , b ut M ish oe did not kn o w it s lo c ati o n an d to ld H a ll to c a ll Se r g e an t M in to n . B e f o r e H a ll c o u ld c a ll M inton, the office r on t he scene telephoned Hall to tell him t hat he wa s not neede d. Serg eant Mishoe, howe ver, g ather ed fr om Minton t hat Hall had refuse d to respond to the sce ne. Chief Smith replied to Hall’s g ri e va nc e by a g re e ingwi th M ish oe ’s ve rs ion of e ve nts
. I n November 2004, Hall fil ed a g rieva nce r eg ardingdisciplinary action take n ag ainst him for his refusa l to sign a memorandum reg arding radio proce dures. Acc ording to H all, ever y one in the Depa rtment was having problems with the batteries in their radios. As a result, Hall fea red that the memo, which st ated that a n office r who did not respond to his or he r ra dio would be disciplined,8

unfairly set up Hall f

o r future disciplinary

action. When Hall re fused to sig n the memo, Serg eant Mis ho e or de re d him to “ [g ]et up to the c a pta in’ s of fi c e .” J.A. a t 30 7 (T ri a l Tr
. a t 16 9) . H a ll responde d: “Well, Sar g e, y ou don’t have to ta lk to me like that. L ike I ’m a dogor something .” Id. Hall was not the only

office r who did not sign the letter. Reg ardle ss, Serg eant Mishoe view ed Ha ll’s statements and a ctions as insubordination, and Captain Br o o k s re l ieved Ha ll of duty for the
re ma ind e r o f t

he da y . Ch ie f S mith r e sp on de d b y trans fer ri ngHa ll r a the r t

ha n d isc ipl ini nghim

in another manner . Ha ll f ina lly a lle g e s that a t an un sp e c if ie d tim e wh e n he wa s wo rk ing in D ist ri c t 3, his Ca

pta in reta liated ag ainst him by

asking him to go throug h a “pr e-bump” proce ss. This meant Ha ll needed to state immediately

wher e he wanted to work the following y ear . The ordinary proce ss, acc ording to Ha ll, wa s to sig n u

p in Se pte mbe r f

or the dis tr ic t in

wh ic h o ne wa

nte d to wo rk ; th e a ssi g nme nts
w o u l d t h e nb e m a d e o nt h e b a s i s o f s e n i o r i t y. Hall testified that as a result of the rac ially hostile work environme nt and re taliation he has
e xpe ri e nc e d, he is e mot ion a lly de va state d; has need e d to se e a ps y c ho log ist ; e xpe ri e nc e s e xtre me phy sical sy

mptoms of st ress; feels para noid; cannot slee p at nig ht; and has filed f or a divorc e fr om his wi fe of

tw e nty -f our y e ars , w ho m he sti ll l ov e s. B. P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound On July 8, 20 02 , H a ll f

ile d a c omp la int wi th the EE OC a lle g ingra c e dis c ri min a tio n a s w e ll as hostile work e nvironment and re taliation in violation of Titl e VI I , and he r ece ived a r ight to sue letter fr om the EEOC on Dec ember 23, 2002. Hal l filed a c omplaint with the Tennessee Human Rights Commiss ion on J uly 8, 20 0 2 all eg ing “ unfair tr eatment a nd terms and c onditions of employ ment” on ac count of ra ce. H all filed a se cond complaint with the EEOC on May 7, 2003,9

alleg in g t h at since the f iling of his prior c harg e with the EEOC he had suff ere d reta liatory ha ra ssm e nt. Hall filed a

complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of T en nessee on Dec ember

19, 2003, alleg ing violations of Tit le VI I relating to the denial of a promotion to t he ra nk of ser g eant, a rac ially hostile work environment, and race -base d reta liation, as well as violations of the Tenne ssee Huma

n Rights Act. Clarksville filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgme nt on November 2 9 , 2 0 0 4. After Hall filed a

response in oppositi on to the motion for summary judgme nt and Clarksville filed a reply , the district court de nied Clarksville’s motion to dism iss and fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt o n M arc h 1 5, 20 05 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso de nie d in

pa rt, grante d in

pa rt , and re se rv e d in

pa rt Cla rk sv ill e ’s mot ion in limi ne to exc lud e c e rt a in pie c e s of ev ide nc e on Au g us t 23, 2005. At the close of all proof, on Marc h 6, 2006, Clarksville moved for judgme nt as a matter of law, which the district court denied. The jury verdic t found that Hall had f ailed to prove that rac e
c on sti tut e d a

mot ivatin g fa c tor

in t he de c isi on

no t to pr omo te him ; th a t H a ll h a d p ro ve d a ra c ia lly hostile work environme nt; and that Hall had proved race -base d reta liation. On March 8, 2006, the district court ente red judgme nt f or Hall in a ccor d with the jury verdic t, in the amount of $150,000. On Ma rc h 2 0, 20 06 , Cl ark sv ill e fi le d a re ne we d mo tio n f

or jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l aw p ur su a nt t o F e d. R. C iv. P. 50 (b) ; or, in the a lte rn a tiv e , a mot ion fo r a ne w tri a l pu

rs ua nt t o F e d R. Civ . P. 50( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) an d

F e d R. Ci v . P. 5 9 ; a

n d a mo ti o nf o r r e mi tt it u r . H a ll f il e d a r e s p o n s e o nA p r il 2 0, 20 06 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d Cla rk sv ill e ’s mot ion on

July 18 , 2 00 6, and

Cla rk sv ill e fi le d a

tim e ly
no tic e of a pp e a l.10 II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review We reviewde novo the district court’s de nial of Clarksville’s re newe d motion for a judg ment
as a matter of la

w. Noble v. Brinke r Int’l, Inc. , 391 F.3d 715, 720 ( 6th Cir. 2004), cert. de nied , 546 U.S. 821 (2005). J udg ment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 is appropr iate onlywhen the nonmov ing“ ‘p art

y ha s bee n ful ly he ard on an issu e and the re is n o le g a lly su ff ic ie nt e vid e nti ary

ba sis for a rea sonable jury to f

ind f or that par

ty on that issue.’” Id. at 7 2 2 (q u o t i n g Ree ves v . Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000)). We revie w de novo the district court’s denia l of the re newe d Rule 50(b) motion. Champion

v . O u tlo o k

Na s h v il le

, I nc. , 3 8 0 F. 3 d 893, 899 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. de nied , 544 U.S. 975 (2005). Under the applicable standard, we “‘must disreg ard all evidenc e favor able to the moving pa rty that the jury is not require d to be lieve. That is, [we] should g ive cre dence to the evidenc e fa voring the nonmovant as we ll as that evidenc e supporting the moving pa rty that is uncontradicte d and unimpeache d, at least to the ex tent that that evidenc e comes from dis interested witnesses.’” Id. at 9 0 0 (q u o t i n g Ree ves , 530 U.S. at 150-51). In revie wing the district court’s de nial of Clarksville’s

m o t i o n , w e ar e n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h e a c h s t a g e o f

t h e b u r d e n - s h i f

t i n g f r a m e w o r k g o v e r n i n g T i t l e V II claims. W

ill iam s v . Na sh v ill e Ne two rk, 132 F .3 d 112 3, 11 31 (6 th Cir . 199 7)

. I ns te a d, we e va luate whether “the rec ord contains evidenc e upon which a rea sonable trier of fa ct could have conclude d as the jury

actua lly did.” Id. We reviewthe district court’s de nial of Clarksville’s motion for a ne w trial for an abuse of discretion. Barnes v. Owens-Cornin g F i b er g l a s C orp. , 2 0 1 F
. 3 d

8 1 5 , 8 2 0 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )

. We
reve rse the dis t ri ct court’s de nial of a motion pursuant to Rule 59 only if we ha ve “a definite a

nd11

fi rm conviction that the trial c ourt committed a cle ar e rror of judg ment.” Id. ( qu o tati o no mi tted). A district court m ay g rant a new tria l when it believes “ that the ver dict is ag ainst the clea r we ight of the e vidence .” Id. I n r e vie wi nga dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g on a mo ti on for a

ne w t ri a l, w e “ mus t fo c us on the ult imate qu e sti on of dis c ri min a tio n r a the r t

ha n o n w he the r a

pla int if f m a de ou t a

pr ima fac ie ca se.” Tisdal e v. F

ed. Ex press Corp. , 415 F.3d 516, 529 (6th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).

“ [N]e ve rt he le ss . . . wh e the r t

he pla int if

f ma de ou t a

pr ima fa c ie c a se may

be re le va nt t o [th e pa

ne l’ s] revie w of that ultimate question.” Moore v . Freem an , 355 F.3d 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). We reviewthe district court’s de nial of Clarksville’s m o t i o n fo r remit titur for an a buse of discretion. Id. at 564. “A trial court is within its discretion in remitting a verdic t only when, a fter
re vie wi nga ll ev ide nc e in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to the awa

rd e e , it is co nv inc e d tha t the ve rd ic t is clea rly excessive, re sulted from passion, bias or pr ej u d i ce ; o r i s so excessive . . . as to shock the judicial conscie nce of

the cour t.” Id. (quotation omitted). B. C lar ksv ill e ’s M ot ion s The instant ca se is rema

rkable , in part, beca

use it involves the same police depar tment and contains sever al overla

pping fac t s wi th Au sti on v . Ci ty of C lar k sv ill e , 244 F. App’ x 639 (6th Cir. 2007). Kenne th Austion (“ Austion”) is a n Afric an-A merica

n who worke d as a police off icer in the D e p art m e n t
. Li k e H a l l , A u s t i o n b r o u g h tana c t i o na g a i n s tC l ar k s v i l l e a l l e g i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f T i t l e V II
a nd the Ten nes see H um an R ight s A ct. S peci fi cal ly , Au st io n al legedcla im s o f di scr im in ati on again st him on the basis of rac e whe n the Depa rtment denied him a pr omotion, a rac i ally hostile work environment, a

nd reta liation, as we l l as a race-ba sed demotion. Id. at 643, 646. A jury found Clarksville liable reg ardingall four of Austion’s claims. Id. at 646.12

Shared f acts be tween Austion and the instant lawsuit include: the use of the wor d “nig g er”
a s a ra c ia l sl ur

in t he la te 19 80 s; the ra c ist

c art oo n; t

he no os e ; and

the cir cul ati on of

Ca pta in Br ooks’s letter de fend ing Chief Smit h. Id. at 643-44, 646. Othe r fa cts on the re cord in Austion para llel the reta liatory actions taken ag ainst Hall for f iling g rieva

nces a nd complaints: Chief Smi th’s y elling at Austion in reta liation f or filing his c harg e with the EEOC, an investigat i o n o f A ustion reg ardingillega l drug and prostitution activity , and a chang e in Austion’s on-ca ll schedule fr om mostly day time to most ly

nighttime hours. Id. at 645. I n addition, Austion, like Hall, testified that he was awa

re of rac ist re marks by Depa rtment employ ees and that a rac ially h o s t i l e w o rk environment ha d a neg ative ef fec t on his work environment a nd persona l life. Id. at 652. The re cords in Austion and the instant ca se do diffe r re g arding some fac ts. Fac ts in Austion not mirr ored in the rec ord supporting Hall’s alleg ations include: the prese nce of rac ially insensitive fig urines on a police office r’s desk and the suspicion pla ced on Austion by investigators for a

driveb y shooting at another of

fice r’s house. Id. a t 6 4 5
- 5 6
. T h e f a c ts p r e s e n t in th is c a s e but that wer e absent in Austion include: the prohibition on Hall’s riding with Blake ly ; the disciplinary repor t reg ardingHall’s use of

a De partment c o mputer; the ac cusation that Ha ll refuse d to respond to a crime s cene ; the acc usation that Hall investigated another detec tive’s ca se; a super ior’s use of a ra cial slur specific ally targ eting Hall; a rac ially derog atory email circ ulated in 2005; and the re quirement that H a ll und e rg o a

“ pr e -b ump ” pr oc e ss r e g ard inghis wo rk a ssi g nme nt. I n Austion , we a ffirme d the district court’s de nial of Clarksvi l l e’ s renewed motion for judgme nt as a matter of law r eg ardingboth Austion’s hostil e-w ork-e nvironment and re taliation claims, as well as t he denial of C larksville’s mot ions for a new tria l and for r emittitur. Id. at 651-54. T h e e v id e n c e in H a ll ’ s c a s e is a t le a s t a s p e r s u a s iv e a s th e e v id e n c e th a t w e re viewed in Austion
.13

I n it s me mor and

um o f law at ta c he d to it s o rd e r d e nyingCla rk sv ill e ’s mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, the di s t ri ct co u rt ex p l ai n edwh y gen u i n e i s s u es o f m at er i al fa ct ex i s t edre gar d i n g Ha l l ’s hos tile-worke nv ir on me nt a

nd re ta liatio n c la ims . Dis t Ct . Re c or d # 52 a t 14 -1 8 ( Me m. D e nyingDe f. ’s Mo t. Dismiss & Mot. Summ . J
. ). As re q u ired by our summary -judg ment standard, the se issues wer e
re so lve d b y

the jur y . We are no t no w at lib e rt y to re we ig h the e vid e nc e , but r a the r w e mus t e va luate
w h e t h e r a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r c o u l d h a v e r e a c h e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d b y t h e j u r y i nt h i s c a s e . In denying Clar

ksville’s Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions following trial, t h e district cour t incorporated its prior memorandum of l aw deny ing the motion for summary judgme nt and elabor ated f urther w hy it w a s r e je c tin g Cla

rk sv ill e ’s argume nts fo r j ud g me nt a s a ma tte r o f l aw and fo r a

ne w tri a l. D ist

. Ct. Record #140 at 2 (Mem. Deny ing Def.’ s Mots. J
. as a Matter of L aw & a New Tr ial). We ag ree with the district c ourt’s holding that Clarksville has prese nted no convincingargument “that the jury
err ed in re turning a ver dict in favor of [Hall] on his hostil e wor

k environment c laim.” Id. a t 6
. We also ag ree with the district c ourt that “[t] he jury was well within its province to find that [Hall] was subjected to r etaliation for his pr otected Title VI I activity .” Id. I n view of the evidenc e submitted to the ju ry

and in light of

the district court’s w ell-re asoned e x planation for its dec ision, we aff irm the district court’s de nial in this case of Clarksville’s motions for judgme nt as a matter of law a nd fo r a ne w tri a l. Finally , the jury

awa rded H all $100,000 damag es on his h o s ti le

- work-e nvironment claim and $50,000 damag es on his r etaliation claim. This is less than the $200,000 total the jury awa rded the plaintiff in Austion on the basis of similar fac ts ($100,000 for Austion’s hostile-wor k-environme nt claim and $100,000 f

or his reta liatio n claim). Id. at 653. We conclude d in Austion that the jury

awa rd wa s “not a g a ins t th e [cl e ar] w e ig ht o f e vid e nc e a nd [did ] not sh oc k th e c on sc ie nc e of

thi s14

court.” Id. at 654. We simil arly conclude in this case that the j ury awa rd is not excessive, did not result from bias or prejudice , and does not shock the conscie nce of the cour t. There fore the district court did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing r emittitur. III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons explained above, we uphold the denial of Clar ksville’s rene wed motion for judgme nt as a matter

of law; moti o n fo r a n ew trial; and motion for re mitti tur. We AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.