FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 5, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14441 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 2 0 3 8 - C V- 2 - R DP B A R R Y W . T U C K E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s H O U S I N G A U T H O R I T Y O F T H E B I R M I N G H A M D I S T R I C T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l5, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hi s i s adi s c r i m i na t i on i n e m pl oy m e ntc a s e br oughtpur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I of2

the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof

1964, a s a m e nde d by the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1991, 42 U . S . C . §§ 2000e - 2( m ) a nd 2000e - 3. B a rry W . T uc ke rc l a i m s tha tthe H ous i ng A uthor i ty of

the B i rm i ngha m D i s tr i c t( “ H A B D ” ) di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns thi m on a c c o u n t o f

h is r a c e , w h ite , o n tw o o c c a s io n s : w h e n it d is c h a r g e d h im f r o m h is pos i t i on a s a s s i s t a ntge ne r a l c ouns e l a nd w he n, i n r e t a l i a t i on f orhi s pr os e c ut i on of thi s c as e, i tchose nott o rehi re hi m for avaca ntatt orney posi t i on af t erhe had fi l ed th i s l aw su i t . A ft er th e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed H A B D ’ s m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en tas a m a tt e rof l a w , the j ury f

ound f orT uc ke ron both c l a i m s , a w a r di ng hi m $93, 990 f or l ostw ages and b enef

i t s and $1 00 , 00 0 i n m ent al -ang ui sh dam ages . T he di stri ct courtdeni ed H A B D ’ s r enew ed m ot i on for j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw and for new tr ia l o r , in th e a lte rn a tiv e , f o rar e m ittitu r . H A B D n o w ap p e a ls th e s e ru lin g s . W e a f f i rm. T he evi dence attri al es t abl i shed thatT ucker w as em pl oyed atH A B D as an a s s is ta n t g e n e r a l c o u n s e l, u n d e rth e d ir e c t s u p e rv is io n o f th e g e n e r a l c o u n s e l, N a om i T rum a n, abl a c k f e m a l e . D ur i ng the c our s e of hi s e m pl oy m e nt , T uc ke ra nd T rum an had severa l di sput es ov erthe offi ce ’ s l ea ve and absence pol i ci es . In her a n n u a l b u d g e t p r o p o s a l s u b m itte d to H A B D ’s e x e c u tiv e d ir e c to r , R a lp h R u g g s , in M ar ch 20 00 , T rum an sugg es t ed thatH A B D el i m i nat e one of tw o ass i st antgeneral coun se l po si t i on s, and repl ac e thatpo si t i on w i th tw o p ar al egal s. R ug gs ra t i fi ed3

th e b u d g e t, a n dT u c k e r , th e a s s is ta n t g e n e r a l c o u n s e l w ith le s s s e n io r ity , lo s t h is j ob. T uc ke rthe n br oughtthi s l a w s ui t . A f t e rT uc ke rf

i l e d hi s c om pl a i nt , the r e m a i ni ng a s s i s t a ntge ne r a l c ouns e l , F a y e R os e nbaum , r e s i gne d, a nd he appl i e d f or the va c a ntpos i t i on. H e r e c e i ve d no r e s pons e f r om H A B D aboutthe va c a nc y f or s e v e r a l m o n th s , s o h e a m e n d e d h is c o m p la in t to a d d th e r e ta lia tio n c la im m ent i on ed abov e. H A B D eventual l y i nt ervi ew ed T ucker for the as si st antgeneral c ouns e l pos i t i on, butnot i f i e d hi m , a f

t e rthe i nt e rvi e w , tha tthe pos i t i on w oul d not be f i l l e d. R uggs , a tthe a dvi c e of T rum a n, w i thdr e w the pos i t i on be c aus e the g e n e r a l c o u n s e l ’ s o f

f i c e wa s wo rk i n g e f

f i c i e n t l y wi th two p a r a l e g a l s a n d two t em po raryatt orneys w ho w er e hi re d t o repl ac e R osenbaum . H A B D l at erhi re d an

“ a s s oc i a t e c ouns e l ” a tthe s a m e pa y gr a de a nd w i th ane a r l y i de nt i c a l j ob desc ri pt i on as “ as si st antgeneralcoun se l . ” W i th these fa ct s i n h and, w e c on si der f i r s tH A B D ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng H A B D ’ s m ot i on f or j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w , the n i t s a r gum e nt s tha tthe c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on in d e n y in g its m o tio n f

o rn e w tr ia l o r , a lte rn a tiv e ly , ar e m ittitu r . Ju d gm e n t as a M at t e r of L aw W e c ons i de rde novo adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng am ot i on f or j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w a nd, i n doi ng s o, appl y the s a m e l e ga l s t a nda r d a s the di s tr i c tc ourt . L e dbe tt e rv. G oody e a rT i r e a nd R ubbe rC o. , I nc . , 421 F . 3d 1169,4

1 1 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e rt. g r a n te d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 2 9 6 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . A s thatst andard d ic ta te s , ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w is ap p r o p r ia te w h e n “ap ar ty h a s b e e n f u lly hear d o n an i ss ue and there i s no l egal l y s uffi ci entevi dent i ary bas i s f or a r e a s o n ab le ju ryto f

in d f o rth a t p a r ty o n th a t is s u e .” F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e r e vi e w “ the e nt i r e r e c or d, e xa m i ni ng a l l e vi de nc e , by w hom e ve rpr e s e nt e d, i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the no nm ov i ng party, and d raw i ng al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s i n the nonm ova nt ’ s f

a vor , ” w e “ w i l l r e ve r s e the de ni a l of j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof la w o n ly if

th e f a c ts a n d in f

e r e n c e s p o in t o v e rw h e lm in g ly in f a v o ro f th e m o v a n t, s uc h tha tr e a s onabl e pe opl e c oul d nota rr i ve a tac ontr a ry ve r di c t . ” L e dbe tt e r , 421 F . 3d a t1177 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . T he de ni a l of j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l aw w i l l b e u p h el d so l o n g as “ reaso n ab l e an d fai r-m i n d ed p erso n s i n th e ex erci se of i m pa rt i a l j udgm e ntm i ghtr e a c h di f f e r e ntc onc l us i ons . ” M i l l e rv. K e nw or th of D othan, Inc. , 27 7 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 75 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). Di s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m H A B D ar gu es thatT ucker fa i l ed t o p rove thati ti nt ent i on al l y di sc ri m i nat ed a ga i ns thi m a nd tha tthe c ourte rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha the pr e s e nt e d “ s uf f i c i e ntdoubt o n th e H A B D ’s p r o f

f e r e d le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n s f o rits em pl oym entac t i on s, such thata j ury r ea sonabl y c ou l d con cl ud e thatthe proffer ed r e a s o n s w e r e n o t w h a t a c tu a lly m o tiv a te d th e H A B D ’s c o n d u c t.” H A B D a s s e r ts5

tha tbe c aus e R uggs w a s the de c i s i on- m a ke r , “ i tw a s e s s e nt i a l f orT uc ke rt o pr e s e nt e vi de nc e of

R uggs ’ ow n r a c i a l orge nde rdi s c r i m i na t ory a ni m us t o s how tha tthe re al re as on m ot i vat i ng the deci si on t o el i m i nat e an ass i st antgeneralcoun se l pos i t i on w a s di s c r i m i na t ory , ” a nd tha tthe c our te rr e d by c onc l udi ng tha tR uggs w a s am e r e c ondui tf

orthe di s c r i m i na t ory a ni m us a ttr i but abl e t o T rum a n. C on gres s has di ct at ed that“ an un l aw ful em pl oym entprac t i ce i s e st abl i shed w hen the com pl ai ni ng party dem on stra t es thatra ce , col or, re l i gi on , se x, or nat i on al ori gi n w as a m ot i vat i ng fa ct or for a ny em pl oym entprac t i ce , even tho ug h o ther f a c t or s a l s o m ot i va t e d the pr a c t i c e . ” 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 2( m ) . A f t e r“ the defe nd antfa i l s t o p er suade the di stri ctcourtt o d i sm i ss the ac t i on for l ac k o f a pr i m af a c i e c a s e , a nd r e s ponds t o the pl a i nt i f f’ s pr oof by of f e r i ng e vi de nc e of

the r e a s o n f o rth e p la in tif

f’s r e je c tio n . . . th e in q u iry s h o u ld f o c u s o n th e u ltim a te qu es t i on of w hether the defendanti nt ent i on al l y di sc ri m i nat ed agai nstthe pl ai nt i ff . ” C ol l a do v. U ni t e d P a r c e l S e rvi c e , C o. , 419 F . 3d 1143, 1150- 51 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h is m e a n s th a t o n c e th e d e f e n d a n t p u ts f

o r th its ca se , w e aband on the bu rden shi ft i ng fr am ew ork d er i ved from M cD on nel l D ou gl as C o rp . v . G reen , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 9 2 , 9 3 S . C t . 1 8 1 7 , 3 6 L . E d . 2 d 6 6 8 (1 9 7 3 ), an d “ th e case is p la c e d b a c kin to th e tr a d itio n a l f r a m e w o rk–in o th e rw o r d s , th e p la in tif f s till bear s the bu rden of prov i ng , m ore probabl y than n ot , thatthe em pl oyert oo k an6

advers e e m pl oym entac t i on agai nsthi m on the basi s of aprot ec t ed pers on al c h a r a c te r is tic .” C o lla d o , 4 1 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 0 - 5 1 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tthe “ ‘ c a t ’ s pa w the ory ” m a y be ut i l i z e d by the pl a i nt i f f t o pr ove “ tha tthe di s c r i m i na t ory a ni m us be hi nd the r e c om m e nda t i on c aus e d the di s c ha r ge . . . i f the pl a i nt i f

f s how s tha tthe de c i s i on m a ke rf ol l ow e d the b ia s e d r e c o m m e n d a tio n w ith o u t in d e p e n d e n tly in v e s tig a tin g ” th e r e c o m m e n d a tio n . S t i m ps on v. C i ty of

T us c a l oos a , 186 F . 3d 1328, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . “ I n s uc h a ca se , th e r ec o m m en d eris u sin g th e d ec isio n m ak eras a m er e c o n d u it , o r ‘ca t’ s p aw ’ t o g i v e effect t o th e reco m m en d er’ s d i scri m i n at o ry an i m u s. ” Id . E ssen t i al l y, w here the i nd i vi du al ac cuse d o f di sc ri m i nat ory ani m us i s “ an i nt egra l part ” of a m u lti- le v e l p e r s o n n e l d e c is io n , th e irim p r o p e rm o tiv a tio n m a y “ta in t[ ] th e e n tir e . . . p r o c e s s .” S c h o e n f

e ld v . B ab b itt, 1 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . A pl ai nt i ff

m ustal so prov i de suff

i ci entevi dence thatthe deci si on -m akerw as m o tiv a te d b y d is c r im in a to ry a n im u s “‘e ith e rd ir e c tly b y p e r s u a d in g th e c o u r t th a t a di s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on m or e l i ke l y m ot i va t e d the e m pl oy e rori ndi r e c t l y by s how i ng tha tthe e m pl oy e r ’ s pr of f e r e d e xpl a na t i on i s unw or thy of c r e de nc e . ’ ” C om bs v. P l a nt a t i on P a tt e rns , 106 F . 3d 1519, 1528 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng T e xa s D e p’ tof C om m uni ty A f

f a i r s v. B ur di ne , 450 U . S . 248, 256, 101 S . C t . 1089, 1095, 67 L . E d. 2d 20 7 (19 81 ). W here “ the defendanthas proff er ed no nd i sc ri m i nat ory7

reaso n s fo r i t s act i o n s, ” th e d i stri ctco u rt , i n ru l i n g o n a m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en tas a m att erof l aw , “ m ust , i n v i ew of al l the evi dence, det erm i ne w hether the pl ai nt i ff h a s c a s t s u f

f ic ie n t d o u b t o n th e d e f

e n d a n t’s p r o f

f e r e d n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n s to p e rm it ar e a s o n ab le f

a c t f in d e rto c o n c lu d e th a t th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d le g itim a te r e a s o n s w e r e n o t w h a t a c tu a lly m o tiv a te d its c o n d u c t.” C o m b s , 1 0 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 3 8 . “W h e th e rju d g m e n t o f

am a tte ro f

la w is ap p r o p r ia te in a n y p a r tic u la rc a s e w ill d e p e n d o n an u mb e ro f

f a c t o r s , ” i n c l u d i n g “ th e s tr e n g th o f th e p l a i n t i f

f’ s p r i ma f a c ie c a s e , [ a n d ] th e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e p r o o f

th a t th e e m p lo y e r ’s e x p la n a tio n is f a l s e . . . . ” R e e ve s v. S a nde r s on P l um bi ng P r oduc t s , I nc . , 530 U . S . 133, 148- 49, 12 0 S . C t . 20 97 , 21 09 , 14 7 L . E d. 2d 10 5 (20 00 ). A f te rr e v ie w in g th e tr ia l tr a n s c r ip t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t ar e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld f i nd tha tR uggs w a s ac ondui tby w hi c h T rum a n m a de a n e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on m o tiv a te d b y h e rd is c r im in a to ry a n im u s . A r e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld f in d th a t, a l though R uggs m a de the ul t i m a t e de c i s i on t o appr ove the budge tpl a n e l i m i na t i ng a n a tto rn e y p o s itio n , h e w a s m e r e ly e n d o r s in g T ru m a n ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n . U nc ontr ove rt e d t e s t i m ony i ndi c a t e d tha tT rum a n pr opos e d the r e or ga ni z a t i on of the l e ga l de pa rtm e nt , a nd T rum a n a dm i tt e d tha ta tthe t i m e s he pr opos e d the re organi za t i on t o R ug gs, she w as aw ar e thatdepartm entpo l i cydi ct at ed that pos i t i ons be e l i m i na t e d on the ba s i s of s e ni or i ty a nd tha tT uc ke rw a s the l e s s s e ni or8

of the tw o ass i st antgeneralcoun se l s. T he re cord al so cont ai ns evi dence that T rum an general l y c on trol l ed the pers on nel deci si on s i n h eroffi ce . S he t es t i fi ed tha tR uggs r e gul a r l y appr ove d he rr e que s t e d pe r s onne l de c i s i ons , i nc l udi ng, w he n, a f t e rR os e nbaum r e s i gne d a nd the of f i c e w a s us i ng t e m por a ry a tt orne y s , R uggs chose nott o h i re a perm anentem pl oyee base d o n T rum an’ s r ec om m endat i on that th e d e p a rtm e n t w a s ru n n in g e f f ic ie n tly . A re as on abl e j ury c ou l d al so fi nd thatT rum an w as m ot i vat ed by ra ci al an im u s w h en sh e iss u ed th e b u d g et p ro p o sa l calli n g fo r th e e li m in atio n o f T u ck er ’s pos i t i on a nd tha tthe a l t e rna t i ve e xpl a na t i ons gi ve n by H A B D , c os t - s a vi ngs a nd ef fi ci ency , w er e “ no tw hatac tual l y m ot i vat ed i t s c on du ct . ” C om bs, 10 6 F . 3d at 15 38 . T ucker t es t i fi ed thathe fe l the w as sc rut i ni ze d m ore c l osel y by T rum an b e c au s e o f

h is r a c e , a n d th a t in o n e in s ta n c e , s h e c a lle d h im ar a c is t, w h ic h h e f e lt w a s de r oga t ory . O the rw i tne s s e s t e s t i f i e d t o c om m e nt s T rum a n m a de tha tc oul d be t aken as evi nci ng ra ci al ani m us. T rum an w as cr i t i ca l of the fr i endshi p b etw ee n an A f r ic an - A m e r ic a n p a r a le g a l, a n d R o s e n b au m , w h o is w h ite , a s k in g th e p a r a le g a l, w hy s he ha d “ s o m uc h i n c om m on w i th w hi t e pe opl e , ” a nd t e l l i ng he rtha ts he

“ w as the on l y bl ac k that[R osenbaum ] t al ks t o. ” R osenbaum fe l tthatT rum an consi dere d the offi ce as bei ng di vi ded al on g rac i al l i nes w hen T rum an t ol d h erthat “s h e w a s o n to [ T u c k e r ] a n d I a n d s h e k n e w th a t w e w e r e te a m e d u p a g a in s t h e r . . .9

.” N o t o n ly c o u ld aju ry h a v e f o u n d th a t T ru m a n p o s s e s s e d ar a c ia l a n im u s , it c oul d a l s o f

i nd tha tthe r e a s ons H A B D pr ovi de d f ore l i m i na t i ng T uc ke r ’ s pos i t i on di d n otm ot i vat e the deci si on . T rum an di d n otcond ucta f i nanci al anal ys i s of her b u d g e t p r o p o s a l, a n d R u g g s , th e e x e c u tiv e d ir e c to rw h o ap p r o v e d th e b u d g e t, coul d n otexpl ai n h ow the re organi za t i on sa ved H A B D any m on ey . T rum an had consi st ent l y a sked for m ea sure s thatw ou l d enabl e the offi ce t o run m ore ef fi ci ent l y, bu tw as w i l l i ng t o st af f an o ff i ce of rot at i ng para l egal s and t em po rary att o rn eys i n l i eu o f T u ck er. In ad d i t i o n , T u ck er w as n o to ffered a p o si t i o n as a para l egal af

t erhi s posi t i on w as cutfr om the bu dg et , even tho ug h the part i es s tip u la te d th a t h e w a s e lig ib le f o rr e h ir e . R e t a lia t io n c la im H A B D arg u es th atT u ck er fai l ed t o sh o w th ath e su ffered an ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on , because nob od y w as hi re d t o fi l l the vacantas si st antgeneral co u n se l p o siti o n , an d fa il ed to p ro v id e e v id en ce th at d iscr ed it ed H A B D ’s a rtic u la te d r e a s o n f

o rn o t r e h ir in g h im , w h ic h w a s th a t th e o f f ic e w o rk e d e f

f ic ie n tly w i th the t e m por a ry a tt orne y s . T i t l e V I I pr ovi de s tha t“ [ i ] ts ha l l be a n unl a w f ul e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e f

ora n e m pl oy e rt o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns ta ny . . . appl i c a ntf or e m pl oy m e nt. . . be c aus e he ha s oppos e d a ny pr a c t i c e m a de a n unl a w f ul e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e by thi s s ubc hapt e r , orbe c aus e he ha s m a de ac ha r ge , t e s t i f i e d,10

a s s i s t e d, orpa rt i c i pa t e d i n a ny m a nne ri n a n i nve s t i ga t i on, pr oc e e di ng, orhe a r i ng u n d erth is su b ch ap ter.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e- 3 (a ). T o sa ti sf y h is b u rd en o f p ro o f, “a pl a i nt i f f m us ts how tha t( 1) he e nga ge d i n s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on; ( 2) he s uf f e r e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on; a nd ( 3) the r e i s ac aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the tw o e ve nt s . ” S ha nnon v. B e l l s outh T e l e c om m uni c a t i ons , I nc . , 292 F . 3d 71 2, 71 5 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). S ho ul d a pl ai nt i ff m e e t th a t th r e e - p a rt a s s e s s m e n t, th e e m p lo y e ris a f f o r d e d th e o p p o r tu n ity “to pr oduc e l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons f orthe a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on, ” how e ve r , the bu rden remai ns w i th the pl ai nt i ff t o p rove by a prepond er ance of the evi dence that th e o f f e r e d r e a s o n s w e r e p r e te x t. I d . I n r e ta lia tio n c a s e s , “a n e m p lo y e rc a n a v o id l i abi l i ty i f

i tc a n pr ove tha ti tw oul d ha ve m a de the s a m e di s put e d e m pl oy m e nt de c i s i on i n the abs e nc e of the a l l e ge d bi a s . ” P e nni ngt on v. C i ty of H unt s vi l l e , 261 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . N e ith e rp a rty c h a lle n g e s th e n o tio n th a t T u c k e re n g a g e d in as ta tu to r ily pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on by f i l i ng hi s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m ; the r e f or e , the que s t i on be c om e s w he the rH A B D e nga ge d i n a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a nd, i f s o, w h e th e rh is d is c r im in a tio n c la im w a s th e c au s e o f s u c h a c tio n . A n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on “ m us te i the rbe a n ul t i m a t e e m pl oy m e nt de c i s i on ore l s e m us tm e e ts om e thr e s hol d l e ve l of s ubs t a nt i a l i ty . ” S t a vr opoul os v.11

F ir e s to n e , 3 6 1 F .3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 6 - 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . W e h a v e n o te d th a t f

a ilu r e to h ir e a n in d iv id u a l is a n e x a m p le o f a n u ltim a te em pl oym entdeci si on . Id. at61 7. A causal conn ec t i on betw ee n the prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty and the adverse em pl oym entac t i on can b e proven b y pre se nt i ng evi dence tha t“ the de c i s i on- m a ke r s w e r e a w a r e of the pr ot e c t e d c onduc t , a nd tha tthe pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd the a dve r s e a c t i ons w e r e notw hol l y unr e l a t e d. ” S ha nnon, 292 F . 3d a t716 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I ti s e s s e nt i a l tha tthe pl a i nt i f f pr ove thatthe “ pers on t aki ng the adverse ac t i on w as aw ar e of the prot ec t ed express i on . ” B a s s v . B o a r d o f

C o u n ty C o m ’r s , O r a n g e C o u n ty , F la ., 2 5 6 F .3 d 1 0 9 5 , 1 1 1 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ). C i rc um st ant i al evi dence, such as a “ [c ] l ose t em po ra l prox i m i ty betw ee n th e p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i ty a n d th e a d v e r s e a c t i o n m a y b e s u f f i c i e n tt o s h o w th a tth e two w e r e n o t w h o lly u n r e la te d .” I d . T he j ury had suff

i ci entevi dence before i ton w hi ch t o fi nd thatT ucker s uf f e r e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a s ar e s ul tof f i l i ng hi s r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on l aw sui t . W hi l e H A B D di d n othi re an “ as si st antgeneralcoun se l ” t o repl ac e R osenbaum , i tdi d l at erhi re an “ as soci at e c ou nsel , ” w ho se j ob desc ri pt i on w as e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e a s th a t o f a s s is ta n t g e n e r a l c o u n s e l, a t th e s a m e s a la ry g r a d e . M oreover, T ucker w as i nt ervi ew ed by a f ou r per son p anel , three of w ho m kn ew abou tthe l aw sui t . R ug gs t es t i fi ed thatthe panel re com m ended thatanother12

i nd i vi du al be hi re d b ec ause T ucker w as un re spon si ve i n h i s i nt ervi ew ; ho w ever , o th e re v id e n c e in d ic a te d th a t th e q u e s tio n in g w a s h o s tile a n d r e g a r d e d th e la w s u it. A j ury c oul d r e a s onabl y f i nd tha tH A B D r e f

us e d t o r e hi r e T uc ke rbe c aus e of the p r o te c te d a c tiv ity in w h ic h h e w a s e n g a g in g ; h e n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d H A B D ’s m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t a s am a tte r . M ot i on f or N e w T r i al H A B D a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n r e f us i ng t o gr a nt it an e w tr ia l d u e to a n e v id e n tia ry e rr o r . I t a s s e r ts th a t th e c o u r t im p r o p e r ly a llo w e d th e ju ry to c o n s id e rap r e - tr ia l, p a r tia l m o tio n to d is m is s in w h ic h it subm i tt ed thatT ucker “ shou l d n otbe abl e t o si m ul t aneousl y s ee k rei nst at em entas a r em edy and appl y f

or op en po si t i on s w i th the H A B D , ” and re qu es t ed an order

“ [ d] i r e c t i ng s ubm i s s i on of [ T uc ke r ] t o w i thdr a w hi s appl i c a t i on f ore m pl oy m e nt thus s ubm i tt i ng hi s r e i ns t a t e m e ntc l a i m t o the [ c ] our tpe ndi ng the ve r di c tof the j u ry , v e s t i n g a l l au th o r i ty o v e rp l a i n t i f f’ s r e i n s t a t e me n ti n th e [ c ] o u r t . ” H A BD c ont e nds tha tthi s c ha l l e nge d e vi de nc e w a s e xtr e m e l y pr e j udi c i a l be c aus e the m o tio n r e p r e s e n te d th e o n ly e v id e n c e o f its r e ta lia to ry in te n t. T he de ni a l of

am ot i on f

orne w tr i a l bythe di s tr i c tc our ti s r e vi e w e d f or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . L ip p h a r d t v . D u r a n g o S te a k h o u s e , 2 6 7 F .3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ). A di stri ctcourtm aygranta new tri al “ for a ny of the re as on s f or w hi ch13

new tri al s have her et ofore been grant ed i n act i on s a tl aw i n the court s of the U ni t ed S ta te s .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 9 ( a ) . “B e c au s e it is c r itic a l th a t aju d g e d o e s n o t m e r e ly s ubs t i tut e hi s j udgm e ntf ortha tof the j ury , ne w tr i a l s s houl d notbe gr a nt e d on e vi de nt i a ry gr ounds unl e s s , a tam i ni m um , the ve r di c ti s a ga i ns tthe gr e a t–not m er el y the great er–w ei gh tof the evi dence. ” L i pp hardt , 26 7 F . 3d at11 86 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). T h e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e d e c la r e th a t “[ a ] s ta te m e n t is n o t h e a r s a y if the st at em enti s off

er ed agai nsta party and i s the party’ s ow n st at em ent , i n ei ther a n i ndi vi dua l orar e pr e s e nt a t i ve c apa c i ty . . . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 801( d) ( 2) ( A ) . T he R ul e s de f

i ne a“ s t a t e m e nt ” a s “ a n or a l orw r i tt e n a s s e r t i on . . . i f i ti s i nt e nde d by the pers on as an as se rt i on , ” and no t e that“ [i ] tcan scarc el y be dou bt ed thatan a s s e rt i o n ma d e i n w o r d s i s i n t e n d e d b y th e d e c l a r a n tt o b e a n a s s e r t i o n . ” Fe d . R. E vi d. 801( a ) , a nd a dvi s ory c om m i tt e e ’ s not e . A s t a t e m e ntm a de i n abr i e f f i l e d by apa rty m a y be c ons i de r e d a s a n a dm i s s i on of f a c t . Y oung & V a nn S uppl y C o. v. G ul f , F l or i da& A l aba m aR a i l w a y C o. , 5 F . 2d 421, 423 ( 5th C i r . 1925) . A bs e nt n ecessary ex cep t i o n s fo r i n co n si st en tp l eas an d co m p l i cat ed j o i n d er scen ari o s,

“ [a ] s ageneralrul e the pl ea di ng of a party m ade i n ano ther a ct i on , as w el l as p le a d in g in th e s a m e a c tio n w h ic h h a v e b e e n s u p e r s e d e d b y a m e n d m e n t, w i thdr a w n ordi s m i s s e d, a r e a dm i s s i bl e a s a dm i s s i ons of the pl e a di ng pa r ty t o the14

f a c t s a l l e ge d the r e i n. ” C ont ’ l I ns . C o. of N e w Y ork v. S he rm a n, 439 F . 2d 1294, 12 98 (5th C i r. 19 71 ). T he S ec on d C i rc ui t , expand i ng on thatconcept , has rul ed tha t“ s t a t e m e nt s m a de by a n a tt orne y c onc e rni ng am a tt e rw i thi n hi s e m pl oy m e nt m a y be a dm i s s i bl e a ga i ns tthe pa r ty r e t a i ni ng the a tt orne y . ” P ur ge s s v. S ha rr oc k, 33 F . 3d 13 4, 14 4 (2n d C i r. 19 94 ). B ec au se th e p ar ti al m o ti o n to d ism iss w as an ad m issio n m ad e b y H A B D ’s a tt orne y s pr i ort o tr i a l , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng the e v id e n c e a n d th e r e a f

te rin d e n y in g H A B D an e w tr ia l. M oti on for R em i tt i tu r or f or a N ew T ri al on th e I ss u e of D am ag es H A B D ar gu es thatthe m ent al angu i sh dam ages aw ar ded b y the j ury w er e nots upport e d by the e vi de nc e ; a c c or di ngl y , the c our ts houl d ha ve or de r e d a rem i tt i tu r o r a n ew tri al o n th e i ssu e o f d am ag es. A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

orr e m i tt i turorane w tr i a l on the i s s ue of da m a ge s i s r e vi e w e d f

or“ ac l e a rabus e of

di s c r e t i on. ” M i ddl e br ooks v. H i l l cr es tF oo ds, Inc. , 25 6 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 49 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A n aw ar d o f dam ages tha tha s be e n r e vi e w e d a nd uphe l d by the tr i a l j udge i s e nt i t l e d t o apr e s um pt i on of v a lid ity . F e rr ill v . T h e P a rk e rG r o u p , I n c ., 1 6 8 F .3 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e a r e “ pa rt i c ul a r l y de f e r e nt i a l t o the f

a c tf i nde r ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e a w a r d s f o rin ta n g ib le , e m o tio n a l h a rm s b e c au s e th e h a rm is15

s o s ubj e c t i ve a nd e va l ua t i ng i tde pe nds c ons i de r abl y on the de m e a norof the w i tne s s e s . ” G r i f

f i n v. C i ty of

O pa - L oc ka , 261 F . 3d 1295, 1315 ( 11th C i r . 2001) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). U nl i ke spec i al dam ages , ho w ever , general c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s “ ne e d notbe pr ove n w i th ahi gh de gr e e of s pe c i f i c i ty ” a nd “m a y b e in f

e rr e d f r o m th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s a s w e ll a s p r o v e d b y th e te s tim o n y .” A k o u ri v . F lo rid a D ep ’to f T ra n sp o rtatio n , 4 0 8 F .3 d at 1 3 4 5 . “ A p lain ti ff’s t e s t i m ony , s t a ndi ng a l one , c a n s uppor ta n a w a r d of c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s f or em o t i o n al d i stress b ased o n a co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n , ” b u t“ th e t est i m o n y m u st e s t abl i s h tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s uf f e r e d de m ons tr abl e e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s , w hi c h m us tbe suff i ci ent l y art i cul at e; nei ther c on cl usory s t at em ent s thatthe pl ai nt i ff suff er ed em ot i on al di stre ss no r the m er e f ac tthata c on st i tut i on al vi ol at i on occurre d s u p p o rts a n a w a r d f

o rc o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s .” I d . A ttri al , T ucker re l i ed sol el y on h i s ow n t es t i m on y t o p rove em ot i on al dam ages . H i s t es t i m on y a m ou nt ed t o suffi ci ent l y art i cul at ed epi sodes of e m ot i on al di stre ss fr om w hi ch a j ury c ou l d aw ar d com pensat ory dam ages . T ucker t es t i fi ed th a t h is r e la tio n s h ip w ith h is f a m ily s u f

f e r e d b e c au s e o f

d e p r e s s io n a n d a n x ie ty . H e f el thu m i l i at ed havi ng t o exp l ai n h i s unem pl oym entt o a nei gh bo r w ho no t i ce d tha thi s c a rw a s a thom e m or e f r e que nt l y tha n us ua l . T o a voi d a l a rm i ng hi s y oung d au g h t er, h e w o u l d p ret en d t o g o t o w o rk . H e al so t o l d th e j u ry o f p h ysi cal effects,16

s uc h a s di ge s t i ve pr obl e m s a nd a n i nabi l i ty t o s l e e p. G i ve n the e vi de nc e be f or e the ju ry , w e w o u ld b e h a r d p r e s s e d to h o ld th a t th e c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in re fusi ng t o g ranta new tri al or order a r em i tt i tur. AFF IRMED.