Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10162 EQ UALE M P L OYM ENT OP P OR T UNI T YC OMM I S S I ON P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. B O B R I C H E N TE R PR I SE S, doi ng busi nes s as Subw ay D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 05- C V

- 01928 B ef ore S M ITH , B A R K S D A L E , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Th i s a p p e a ls t e m s f r o m a n Ame r i c a n s wi t h Di s a b i l i t i e s A c t(ADA) e nf o r c e m e nta c t i o n f

i l e d a ga i ns tBob r i c h Ent e r pr i s e s by t he EqualEm pl o ym e nt O p p o r t u n i t yC o mmi s s i o n ( E E O C ) o n b e h a l f o f f o r me rB o b r i c h e mp l o y e e T a mmy G its h a m . S ee A m eri can s w i t h D i sabi l i t i es A ctof 199 0 (T i t l e I ) , 42 U . S . C . §§ 121 11-121 1 7 . I n Jan u ary 200 8, pu rsuan tt o a j u ry verdi ct

— an d aft er c ons i der i ng B obr i c h’ s pos t - t r i alr enew ed m ot i on f orj udgm entas a m at t erof l aw United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10162

2 (J M O L )

— t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r te n t e r e dju d g m e n t , o r d e r in gB o b r ic h , in tera lia , t o pay $50 , 000 i n com pen satory an d $1 00, 000 i n pu n i t ive da m ages f or A D Avi ol ati on s. Bobr i c h ur ge s : J M O L s ho u l d hav e b e e n g r ant e d b e c aus e i ns uf f i c i e nt evi den ce s u pp ort ed the j u ry’ s f i n d in gG itsham w as di sabl ed an d su bj ectt o a hos t i l e- w or k envi r onm ent ; and t he di st r i c tc our tabus ed i ts d i scr et i on by e x c l u d i n gc e r t a i n i mp e a c h me n te v i d e n c e . A F F I RMED. I. G i t sham w as em pl oye d by B ob r i c h f r o m 2 0 0 1 t o 2 0 0 3 a s a Su b w ay r e s t aur ants t o r e m ana ge ra nd, l at e r , ar e a s upe r vi s o r . G i t s ham ha s pe r m ane nt h eari n g l oss i n both ears; w ears h eari n g ai ds; an d, even w i t h t h ose heari n g ai ds, exp eri en ces di f

f i cul t y com preh en di n g speech a n d sou n ds i n som e sit u ati on s. D u ri n g h er em pl oym en tat B obri ch, G i t sha m ’ s i m m edi ate s u pervi sor, G i lber t , r epe at edly m ade s t at em ent s aboutG i t sham ’ s hear i ng i m pai r m entt hat G itsh a m f

ou n dem b a r r a s s in g , in c lu d in g , in tera lia , ask i n g w h eth er G i tsham had her“ ear s on ” att he s t ar tof s t af f m ee t i ngs. Therew as al so t es t i m ony t hat S u arez, B obri ch’ s presi den t , m ad e a si m i l ar rem ark to G it sha m at an of f i ce C hri st m as par t y. T h e p a ttern of rem a rk s con ti n u ed ev en after G i tsh a m ’ s com p l a i n ts t o G i lb e r t a n dto S c h u s te r , as u p e r v is o r . G its h a m co n s u lte dw ith th e E E O C in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 ; th a t M a y , s h e re s ig n e dfr o m B o b r ic h . T h e E E O C co m m e n c e dth is A D Aenf

or c em entac t i on agai nstB obr i c h i n Sept em ber2005. T ri alw as held i n m id

- 200 7. I n Jan u ary 200 8, pu rsuan tt o a j u ry ve r di c t

— anda f

t e rco ns i de r i ng Bob r i c h’ s pos t - t r i alre ne w e d JM O L m o t i o n— t he d is tr ic t c o u r te n te r e dju d g m e n t, r e q u ir in gB o b r ic h , in tera lia , t o pay$150, 000 i n com pen satory an d pun i t ive da m ages f or A D Avi ol ati on s. (T h e di st ri ctcourt d id , h o w e v e r, gr a n t B o b rich J M O L on th e co n str u ctiv e -d isch a rg e cla im .)N o. 08- 10162

3 II. B o b r ic he s s e n tia llyra is e s tw ois s u e s : w h e th e rt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tim p r o p e r ly de ni e d J M O L o n t he di s ab i l i t y and h ost i l e - w o r k- e nvir o nm e ntc l ai m s ; a nd w h et h er it s excl u si on of cer t ai n i m pea chm en t e v iden ce w as an abu se of d iscr e tion . (T h e J M O L forB o b rich on co n str u ctiv e -d isch a rg e is n o t a t issu e .) A. B obri ch co n test s th e den i alof JM O L on the cl ai m s t h at G i t sha m w as: d i s a b l e du n d e rt he ADA ; a n ds u bj e c tt o ah o s t i l e - wo r ke n v i r o n me n t . AJ M OL de ni ali s r e vi e w e d de no vo . E . g. , A rse m ent v. S pinn ak er Explorati on Co. , 400 F . 3d238 , 248 (5t h C i r. 2 005 ) . “JM O L is proper w h en ‘ t h e fact s and i n ferences poi n tso st rongly and overw h el m i n gl y i n favor of on e p a rty tha tt h e court con cl u d es t h a t reas on a b l e j u rors cou l dn ot arr ive at a co n traryve rd i ct. ’” Id . at 248- 49 ( quot i ng B el low s v. A m oco O i lCo. , 1 1 8 F .3 d2 6 8 , 2 7 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 )); see als o F ED . R. C IV . P. 50(a) . R est ated, t h e JM O L d e n ia l m u st be up h el d u n l ess
“ t h ere i s no le g a llys u ffic ie n t e v id e n tia r yb a s is fo rth e j u r y ’s v e r d ic t” . La ne v . R . A . S i m s, Jr. , I

n c. , 2 4 1 F .3 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d); see F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 0 (a )(1 ).

“ F or our d e novo revi ew of a JM O L

- den i al , w e ‘ revi ew al l of t h e evi den ce i n t he r ec or d . . . [but ] m ay notm ake c r edibi l i t y de t er m i nat i ons orw ei gh e v id e n c e ’”. Ars e m e nt , 400 F. 3d at249 ( quot i ng Re e v e s v . S a n d e rs o n P l u m b i ng Prods. , I

n c. , 5 3 0 U .S . 1 3 3 , 1 5 0 (2 0 0 0 )). L ik e w is e , “th e e v id e n c e , a s w e ll a s a ll r e as o nabl e i nfe r e nc e s f r o m i t , a r e v i e w e d i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he v e r d ic t” . Lane , 241 F. 3d at445. 1. Th e j ury f

ound t hatG i tsham “ suf fer ed f r om a ‘ di sa bi l i t y’w hi l e s he w as em pl oyedby B obri ch”. I n den yi n g B obri ch’ s r en ew ed JM O L m ot i on , t h e di st ri ct c our thel d “l egall y s uf f i c i entev i denc e s upport s t he f i nd i ngtha tM s . G i t sham w as d i sa b l ed as a m a tter of l a w ”.N o. 08- 10162

4 “A‘ di sabi l i t y’under t he A D Ai s def i ned as ‘ a phys i c alorm ent al i m p a i rm en t t h a t su b sta n tia lly lim itsone or m ore of t h e m aj or li fe act ivi t i es of [ an ] i n divi du al ; a record of such im pa i rm en t ; or bei n g regarded as hav i n g such a n im p a ir m e n t’”. McIn n is v . A la m o C m ty. Co ll. D ist. , 207 F . 3d 276 , 280 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o tin g4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 2 ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d). H e a rin gis a“m ajorlife a c tiv ity”. E . g. , Ivy v . Jon es , 1 9 2 F .3d 5 1 4 , 5 1 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T h a t m ajorlife act ivi t y i s “ sub st an t i al l y l i m i t ed” w h en t h e i n divi du ali s: (i) [u ] n able t o p erf

orm a m aj or l i fe a ct ivi t y t h at t h e average p erson i n t h e gen eralpop u l ati on can p erf orm ; or (i i) [ s] i gn i f

i can t l y rest ri ct e d a s t ot h e conditi on , m an n er, or du rat i on u n d e r w h ich a n in d ivid u a l ca n p e rfo rm ap a rticu la r m ajorlife act ivi t y as com pa red t o t h e condit i on , m an n er, o r d u rat i on un der w h i ch the averag e person i n t h e ge n e ralpop u l ati on can p erf orm t hats am e m aj orl i fe a c t ivi t y. McIn n is , 2 0 7 F .3d a t 2 8 0 (qu o tin g2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 3 0 .2). A r e a s o n a b l e j u r o rc o u l df i n dGi t s h a m wa s d i s a b l e du n d e rt h e ADA. A m on g ot h er t h i n gs, G i t sha m h as w orn heari n g ai ds si n ce 199 5; an au di ol ogi st t es t i f i ed r egar di ng G i t sham ’ s i m pa i rm ent ; and anot herw i t nes s, M as se y, t est i f i ed ab ou tt h e l i m i t ati on s G i t sha m experi en ces even w h i l e w e a rin g h er c o r r e c tiv e h e a r in ga id s . 2. T h e j u r yf

o u n d“t h a t. . . S u a r e z a n d/o r. . . Gi lb e r ts u bj e c t e dT a mmy G i t s ham t o aho s t i l e w or k e nvir o nm e ntb e c aus e s he [i s di s ab l e d un de rt he AD A] ” . I n de nyi ng Bobr i c h’ s r e ne w e d J M O L m o t i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o urthe l d: “[T ]h e B o b r ic h m a n a g e r s ’co n d u c t w a s s u ffic ie n tlys e v e r e to . . . cr e a te a h o s tile w ork en viron m en t”. a. B ob ri ch fa iled to raise th i s h ostil e-w ork -en viron m en t cha l l en ge i n i ts JM O L m ot i on s at the cl ose of the E E O C ’ s case a n d at t h e cl ose of i t s ow n case. S eeF ED . R. C IV . P. 50( a) . Ins t ead, B obr i c h’ s hos t i l e- w or k- envi r onm entc hal l engeN o. 08- 10162

5 w a s r a is e d , fo r th e fir s t t im e , inits p o s t-t r ia l renew edJ M O L m o tio n . S eeF ED . R. C IV . P. 5 0 (b ). Gen e r a l l y , “ [i] f

ap a r t y fa i l s t o r a i s e a n i s s ue i n i t s Rul e 5 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) [J M OL] m oti on s at tr ia l, it m a y n ot d o so i n i ts po st- tri a lR u l e 5 0 (b) [JM O L ] m oti on ”. Ars e m e nt , 4 00 F. 3da t2 47 . H o w e ve r , “ [ a] n e xc e pt i on occurs i f t he no nm o va nt

. . . fa ils to [o bje c t] t o th e R u le 5 0 (b ) m o tio n ”. I d. The EE O C di d no to bj ectto the i nc l us i o n o f t he ne w ho s t i l e - w o r ken vi ronm en t cha l l en ge i n B obri ch’ s R u l e 50(b) m ot i on . B ecau se of t h i s fai l u re, t h i s i ssue i s not f

orf ei t ed, an d i s r evi ew ed u n der t h e sam e deno v o sta n da rd a p p lie d to B o b r ic h ’ s d is a b ilityc h a l le n g e , sup ra . E . g. , T h ompson & W

allace of Me mphi s , I

nc . v . Falc o nw o o d Cor p. , 100 F. 3d 429, 435 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) ( di s c us s i ng fa ilu r e to o bje c t); Ars e m e nt , 400 F . 3d at 248
- 49 (di scussi n g t h ea pplic abl e de no vo s ta n d a r do f r e v ie w ). A lo n gth is lin e , Un i t h erm F oodS yst em s, In c. v. S w if

t - E ckri ch, I

n c. , 546 U . S. 394 ( 2006) (i nvolvi ng t he i nt er pl ay o f Feder alR ul es of

C ivi lPro c edur e 5 0( a) an d 50 (b) ) does n ot requ i re reconsi derati on of ou r court’ s above-s t ated fai l u re- t oo bje c t r u le . b. A hos t i l e - w o r k e nvir o nm e nt , s uf f i c i e ntt o give r i s e t o a n a c t i o n und e rt he A D A , ex i st s w hen “ t he di sabi l i t y- bas ed har as sm ent[i s] ‘ . . . s uf f ic i e ntlyp e rvas ive o rs e ve r e t o al t e r t he c o ndit i o ns o f e m pl o ym e nta nd c r e at e a n a bus ive w o r ki ng e n v ir o n m e n t’”. Flow ers v. S . R eg’l Physi ci an S ervs . I n c. , 2 4 7 F . 3 d22 9 , 23 6 ( 5 th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng Mc Conat hyv. D r . Pe ppe r /Se v e n U

p Co r p. , 131 F. 3d 558, 563 ( 5th C i r. 199 8) ) . For determ i n i n g w h et h er a w orki n g en vi ronm en ti s abu sive, t hi s c our tm ustc on side rt he e nt ir et y o f t he e vi denc e pr es ent ed at tri a l , i n cl u d i n g th e freq u en cyof th e d i scrim i n a to rycon d u ct, i ts severi t y, w h et h er iti s ph ysi cal l y t h reat en i n g o r h u m i l i ati n g, or a m ere of fen sive u t t e ra n ce, an d w h et h er itun reasona bl y i n t erf eres w i t h a n e m p lo y e e ’s w o r kp e r fo r m a n c e . E v e n u n d e rth is c ir c u it ’sN o. 08- 10162

6 fai r l y hi gh s t andard f ors eve r e o rpervas ive c onduct , t hi s c our tc an reverse a j u ry verdi ctonl y w h en reasonab l e m i n ds i n t h e exerci se of i m p a rti a lj u d gm en t cou l dn ot h a ve arrive dat th a t verd i ct. Id . (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s a n dcit a tio n s o m itt e d); see als o S oleda d v. U. S . D ep’ tof Treasury , 3 0 4 F .3d5 0 0 , 5 0 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). Areasonab l e j u ror coul d f i n d a h ost i l e- w ork en vi ronm en t . A m on g ot h er t h in g s , t h e te s t im o n yo f w it n e s s e s M a s s e ya n d S h u s t e r , a s w e lla s G it s h a m ’s ow n t est i m on y, i s probative of a repea te d p att ern of ha rassi n g st atem en t s; G i t s ham v o i c e d he ro bj e c t i o n to theses t at e m e nt s ; a nd t he ha r as s m e nt c o n tin u e d . In su m , an desse n ti a l l y for th e rea son s stated bythe district c ou rt i n i ts d e ta ile do p in io n co n c e r n in gth e re n e w e d J M O L m o tio n , J M O L w a s p r o p e r ly d e n ie dfo rth e d is a b ilitya n dh o s tile -w o r k -e n v ir o n m e n t is s u e s . Se eEqual E mploym ent O

pp ort uni tyCom m ’

n v. B obri ch E n t ers . , No . 3 : 0 5
- CV

- 1 9 2 8
- M ( N. D. T e x . 8 J a n . 2 0 0 8 ) (o r d e ra d d r e s s in gB o b r ic h ’ s re n e w e dJ M O L m o tio n ). B. T h e l ast i ssue concerns t h e ex clu si on of cer t ai n i m pea chm en tevi den ce. A t t r ia l, B o b r ic h s o u g h t t o e lic it t e s tim o n yth a t, in tera lia , G i t sha m , on h er Bobr i c h j o b ap pl i c at i o n, fail e d t o ho ne s t l y di s c l o s e pa s tj o b e xp e r i e nc e , fe l o ny con victi on s, an du se o f oth er n a m es. T h e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot all ow B ob ri ch to cros s exam i n e G i t sha m abou tt h ese m att ers, rul i n g: “ T h e prej u di ci ali m pa ctof t h i s [ evi den ce] i s ext rem el y si gn i f i can t” ; an d “t h e probative value i s not s u ffic ie n t t o o u tw e ig h th a t p r eju d ic ia l e ffe c t” . E v id e n tia r yr u lin g s a r e re v ie w e dfo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . E . g. , D e Cor t ev. Jo r dan , 4 97 F. 3d4 33 , 4 40 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) . M o r e o ve r , “ [ e ] ve n if a n a bus e of di sc r et i on i s f

ound, t he e r r orw i l lbe c on sider ed h ar m l es s unl es s a s ubst ant i al r ig h t o f th e co m p la in in gp a r tyw a s a ffe c te d ”. Id . (c i t i ng CompaqComput e rCor p. v. E rgonom e I

n c. , 3 8 7 F .3 d4 0 3 , 4 0 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )); see F ED . R. E VID . 1 0 3 (a ).N o. 08- 10162

7 Bec aus e t he fe l on y c o nvi c t i o ns a ti s s ue w e r e m o r e t han t e n y e ar s o l d, B obr i c h di d nots ee k t o i nt r oduc e t hem under Feder alR ul e of E vi denc e 6 09 (pertai n i n g t o i m pea chm en tusi n g convic t i on evi den ce f or “th e p u rpose of a tt a c k in gth e ch a r a c te rfo rtr u th fu ln e s s o f aw itn e s s ”). S ee F ED . R. E VID . 609(b) (g e n e ra llyp ro h ib iti n ga d m iss ion of co n v iction s m o re th a n t e n y e a rs old ). In ste a d , B o b rich so u g h t to in tro d u ce G itsh a m ’ s job -a p pl i cat i on m i srepresentat i on s ab o utt h e convi ct i on s, al on gw it h ot h er j ob- ap pl i cat i on m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 6 0 8 (b ) (p e r m itt in gs p e c ific i n st an ces of

condu ctt o “be inqu i red i n t o on cross - exam i n ati on of t h e w i t n ess

. . . c o n c e r n in gth e w itn e s s ’ch a r a c te rfo rtr u th fu ln e s s o ru n tr u th fu ln e s s ”). T h e di strictcourtexclu dedth i s j ob-a pp licat i on - m i srepresentati onevi den ce purs uant t o Fede r al R ul e o f E vi denc e 4 03, det er m i ni ng i t s pro bat ive val ue w as o ut w e i ghe d b y i t s pr ej udi c i ale f fe c t . Con s i s t e ntw i t h t hatde t erm i n at i o n, o ur c o ur tha s r e c o gni z e d, [ s] peci f i c i n st an ces of

t h e condu ctof

a w i t n ess, f

or the pu rpose of att acking or sup porti n g t h e w i t n ess’ cha ract er f or tru th f

u l n ess, ot hert han co nvi c t i on o f c r i m e a s pro vi ded i n [R ] ul e 609, m ay notbe p r o v e db ye x tr in s ice v id e n c e . T h e ym a y , h o w e v e r , i n t h e di scret i on of t h e c ou rt , if

pr obat ive of

t r ut hf ul nes s orunt r ut hf

ulness , be in q u ir e d in to o n c r o s s -e x a m in a tio n o f th e w itn e s s . . . . F ED . R. E VID . 6 0 8 (b ). . . . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r th a s s u b s ta n tia l d is c r e tio n in d e te r m in in gth e a d m is s ib ilityo f im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e u n d e rR u le 6 0 8 (b ). Uni t e d S t at e s v. Far i as - Far i as , 925 F . 2d 805 , 809 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ). F i n a l l y, eve n if ch a ra cter ev i d en ce is dee m ed ad m i ssib le u n d e r R u le 6 0 8 (b ), its a d m is s ib ilityis s u bje c t t o R u le 4 0 3 . I d. ; see a ls o Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 822 F. 2d 51 2 , 517 ( 5t h C i r . 1987) (“T h e d i stri ct cou rt m ay u n d e r R u le 6 0 8 (b ) d e te r m in e if e v id e n c e is pr o ba t ive o f

t r ut hf ul ne s s , a nd und e rRule4 0 3exc l udee ve n pro bat i ve evi d ence if th e p reju d icia l effec t ou tw e igh s th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e .”) . Un i t ed S t ate s v. S kel t on , 5 1 4 F .3 d4 3 3 , 4 4 3 -4 4 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 0 2 (20 0 8 ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d).N o. 08- 10162

8 E vi den ce p r o v i d e d by w i t n e s s e s o t h e rt h a n G i t s h a m s h o w e d , in tera lia , t he e xi s t e nc e o f

adi s ab i l i t y andaho s t i l e - w o r k e nvir o nm e nt ; t he j ur y di d no tde pe nd sol el y u pon G i t sha m ’ s t est i m on y. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otabu se it s di scr et i on w he n i tde t e r m i ne d t he pr o ba t ive v al u e of t he i m pe ac hm e nte vi de nc e a ti s s ue w o u ldb e o u tw e ig h e db y , in tera lia , t he pr ej udi c i ale f fe c to f r e fe r e nc i ng G its h a m ’ s p r io rfe lo n ie s . III. F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , t h e j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.