# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 19 53

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ray N as sa r, Ph .D.; Gen a Sm it h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Earn es ti ne Jac ks on , Ind iv id ua ll y & in he r of

fic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Hu gh es Sch oo l

Bo ard m em

be r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Ji m m y W il ki ns , Ind iv id ua ll y

& in hi s C ap aci ty as Su pe rin te nd en t o f th e Hug he s Sch oo l Di st ric t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Hug he s Sc ho ol Dis tri ct

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Hug he s Sc ho ol Bo ard , Mem be rs in th ei r Offi ci al Cap aci ti es ; Ru do lp h R ob in so n, in Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty as m em be r of Hug he s Sc ho ol Bo ard ; Dem arcu s B ur ks , in
Offi ci al Cap aci ty as m em be r of Hug he s Sc ho ol Bo ard ; Lei th a Cu pp le s, i n Off ic ia l Cap aci ty as m em

be r of Hug he s Sc ho ol Bo ard ; Ir en e Co m bs , in Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty

as m em be r of Hug he s Sc ho ol Bo ard ; J eff Sp al et ta , in Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty as m em be r of Hug he s Sc ho ol Bo ard ; W E Duc kwo rth , in Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty as m em be r of Hug he s Sc ho ol Bo ard

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __App eal fro m Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - J on es bo ro

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 8, 2 01 4
Fil ed : M arch 3, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Bel ie vi ng th at th e sc ho ol di st ric t of Hug he s, Ark an sa s (“ sc ho ol di st ric t” ) fir ed

th em be cau se of th ei r race , Ray Nas sa r an d Gen a Sm it h su ed an d won un de r se ve ral

le ga l th eo rie s. The sc ho ol di st ric t an d on e sc ho ol -b oa rd m em be r, Earn es ti ne Ja ck so n,

no w ap pe al se ve r al or de rs of th e di st ric t co ur t. W e affi rm in pa rt an d va cat e an d

rem an d i n p art

.

I.

The sc ho ol d i s t ric t hi red Ray Nas sa r as su pe rin te nd en t in 20 08

. W hi le

su pe rin te nd en t, Nas sa r hi red Gen a Sm it h as a bu si ne ss m an ag er. The sc ho ol di st ric t

ren ewed Nas sa r’s co nt ract fo r th e th ree y ears ru nn in g fro m Ju ly 1, 20 10 un ti l Ju ne 30

, 20 13

. Ove r th os e th ree y ears , th e c o n tra ct pr ov id ed fo r a to ta l sa la ry of $2 74 ,00 0,
pl us be ne fit s.

Bo th Nas sa r an d Sm it h are whi te . Aft er t he raci al co m po si ti on of th e sc ho ol

bo ard sh ift ed fro m a whi te m ajor it y to an Afri can -Am eri can majo rit y , Nas sa r’s

a lre ad y -p oo r rel at io ns hi p wit h two Afri can -Am eri can bo ard m em be rs de te rio rat ed

fu rth er. One of th os e bo a r d m em be rs was Earn es ti ne Ja ck so n. At on e pu bl ic

m eet in g, sh e refe rred to Sm it h as Nas sa r’s “ gi rlf rie nd ,” th ou gh bo th Nas sa r an d Sm it h

-2

-are m arri ed to ot he r pe op le

. Ja ck so n al so sa id at a m eet in g th at Nas sa r “ li e[s ]. ” The

ho st i l i t y de vo lv ed in to a pr of an it y -la ced ex ch an ge , an d so on aft er, on Feb ru ary 8,

20 11

, th e sc h oo l di st ric t fir ed Nas sa r wit ho ut a he ari ng

. A few m on th s la te r, th e

sc ho ol di st ric t fi red Sm it h, al so wit ho ut a he ari ng

.

Nas sa r a n d S m it h su ed th e sc ho ol di st ric t, Ja ck so n, an d ot he rs , al le gi ng

vi ol at io ns of du e pr oc es s, un la wfu l raci a l d i s c riminat io n, an d br each of co nt ract

. Nas sa r an d Sm it h bo th cl ai m ed th at Ja ck so n’s “ gi rlf rie nd ” co m

m en t was de fam at or y ,

an d Nas sa r in di vi du al ly co m pl ai ne d of Ja ck so n’s sa y in g th at he “ li e[s ]. ” The di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t fo r N a s sa r an d Sm it h on th e du e-p ro ces s

cl ai m s, re se rv in g t he rem ai ni ng cla im s an d t he de te rm in at io n o f da m ag es for tri al

.

At tri al

, an eco no m is t te st ifi ed to di ffer en t m eas ur es of Nas sa r’s da m ag es fro m

lo si ng hi s job

. The ne t sa la ry an d be ne fit s lo s t be twee n th e da te of Nas sa r’s fir in g

an d th e tri al were wor th $1 95 ,63 9.3 8. D u r i n g cro ss -ex am in at io n, th e eco no m is t

va lu ed at ab ou t $5 0,0 00 th e sa la ry an d be ne fit s th at wou ld ha ve rem ai ne d on Nas sa r’s

c o n t ract fro m th e ti m e of th e tri al un ti l th e co nt ract wou ld ha ve ex pi red

. Th u s , Nas sa r’s da m ag es to th e en d of hi s co nt ract to ta le d ab ou t $2 45 ,63 9.3 8. The

eco no m is t al so te st ifi ed th at th e pr es e n t v a lu e of Nas sa r’s lo st sa la ry , lo st be ne fit s,

an d ad de d tra ve l co st s fo r se ve n y ears aft er tri al was $2 83 ,57 7.7 7. The sc ho ol di st ric t

an d J ack so n d id no t o bjec t t o t he tes ti m on y ab ou t fu tu re d am ag es

.

Afte r th e cl os e o f al l t he ev id en ce, t he de fen da nt s m ov ed un de r Fed eral Ru le

of Ci vi l Proc ed ur e 50 (a) for judg m en t as a m at te r of la w, ci ti ng on ly “ th e pl ai nt iff s’

fai lu re to carr y th ei r bu rd en .” The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d in st ru ct ed th e jury on

th e m eas ur e of da m ag es ap pr op ria te un de r each of Nas sa r’s an d Sm it h’s cl ai m s. The

co ur t fu rth er i ns tru ct ed th e jury to re du ce i ts award s s o a s n ot to du pl ic at e rec ov ery

fo r th e sa m e m is co nd uc t.

-3

-The jury fo un d fo r Nas sa r an d Sm it h on al l cl ai m s. Sp eci fic al ly fin di ng th at

Nas sa r wou ld no t hav e be en fir ed ha d th e sc ho ol di st ric t pro vi de d a pr op er he ari ng , th e jury award ed Nas sa r $3 40 ,00 0 on hi s du e-p ro ces s cl ai m— mo r e th an he wou ld

ha ve earn ed in sa la ry an d be ne fit s th ro ug h th e en d of th e te rm of hi s co nt ract —$ 1.0 0

on hi s di sc riminat io n cl ai m , and $1 .00 on hi s co nt ract cl ai m

. The de fen da nt s th en 1

ren ewed un de r Ru le 50 (b ) th ei r m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, cl ai m in g fo r

th e fir st ti m e w i t h sp eci fic it y th at th e di sc riminat io n cl ai m s fai le d fo r in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce of raci al di sc riminat io n an d th at th e $3 40 ,00 0 du e-p ro ces s da m ag es

ex ceed ed th e am ou nt su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce. The di st ric t c o u r t d e ni ed th e

de fen da nt s’ m ot io n.

N as sa r an d Sm it h req ue st ed at to rn ey ’s fees

. The ir le ad co un se l’s us ua l rat e

was $2 50 pe r ho ur , bu t th ey req ue st ed fee s “m or e in li ne wit h th e co nt in ge nc y fee

ag reem en t th ey ha d wit h th ei r at to rn ey s” —ab ou t $4 40 pe r ho ur fo r le ad co un se l. The

co ur t gr an te d Nas sa r an d Sm it h at to rn ey ’s fees at a rat e of $3 75 pe r ho ur fo r th ei r le ad

co un se l.

II.

The sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n ap pe al ed

. The ir br ie f arg ue s th at (1 ) th ey were

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on th e di sc riminat io n cl ai m s be cau se th ere was

in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of raci al di sc riminat io n, (2 ) Ja ck so n was en ti tl ed to jud gm en t

as a m at te r of la w on th e de fam at io n cl ai m s be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

of pu bl ic at io n an d “ act ua l m al ic e,” (3 ) th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve red uc ed th e du e-p ro ces s

da m ag es award ed or gr an te d a ne w tri al on th at is su e, an d (4 ) th e award of at to rn ey ’s

fees was e xc es si ve

.

The $3 40 ,00 0 award rep res en te d on ly eco no m ic da m ag es

. Th e jury al so 1

award ed ot he r, no n- eco no m ic da m ag es th at are n ot at i ss ue on ap pe al

.

-4

-A.

W e tu rn fir st to th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n’s arg u men t t h at th ey were

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on th e di sc riminat io n cl ai m s. The y as se rt th at

th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t fo r a rea s o n a b le jury to fin d raci al di sc riminat io n, an

as se rti on th at th ey fir st rai se d in th ei r po st -tr ia l m ot io n un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l

Pro ced ur e 50 (b ). W e co nc lu de th at th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n ha ve waiv ed th is

is su e.

Ru le 50 (b ) pr ov id es fo r po st -tr ia l ren ewal of a Ru le 50 (a) tri al m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of l a w

. A co ur t rev ie win g a Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n is li m it ed to

co ns id erat io n of on ly th os e gr ou nd s ad va nc ed in th e or ig in al

, Ru le 50 (a ) mo ti on

. Gra ha m Co ns tr

. Se rv

s. v. Hammer & St eel In c. , 75 5 F.3 d 61 1, 61 7- 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

Ru le 50 (a) in tu rn req ui res th at a “ m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w

. . . sp eci fy

. . . the law an d fa ct s t ha t en ti tl e th e m ov an t t o ju dg m en t.”

Th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n di d sp eci fy why th ey be li ev ed th ey wer e

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w in th ei r po st -tr ia l, Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n. Bu t in

th ei r Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n, t he sch oo l d is tri ct an d J ack so n’s at to rn ey sai d o nl y th at :

th e de fen da nt s wou ld m ov e fo r a di rect ed ve rd ic t ba se d on th e pl ai nt iff s’
fai lu re to carr y th ei r bu rd en on al l bu t th e du e pr oc es s cl ai m

. And I—I

co ul d go th r o u g h al l th e ev id en ce, bu t th e Co ur t— I won ’t go an y fu rth er.

Thi s st at em en t, whi ch sp eci fie s ne it he r la w no r fact s, la ck s th e pa rti cu la rit y req ui red

of a Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n. Se e Alt er na te Fue ls

, In c. v. Ca ba na s , 53 8 F.3 d 96 9, 97 3- 74
(8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (rejec ti ng a jud gm en t-a s- a-m at te r-o f-l aw arg um en t on ap pe al be cau se

t h e R u l e 5 0( a) m ot io n “ ga ve no le ga l or fact ua l ba si s” ); W il li ams v. Run

yo n , 13 0 F.3 d 56 8, 57 1- 72 (3 d Ci r. 19 97 ) (fi nd in g th e “ bl an ke t st at em en t th at ‘the re is no

le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d fo r th e Pl ai nt iff o[ n]

-5

-a n y o f th e is su es th at co un se l ha ve se t fo rth in th is cas e’” to be “ ob vi ou sl y

in su ffi ci en t” to s u p p o r t a Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n)

. Acco rd in gl y , de sp it e th e m or e

pa rti cu la r Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n, th e sc ho ol di st ric t and Ja ck so n’s neb ul ou s Rul e 50 (a)

m ot io n “ can no t be th e ba si s of an ap pe al .” Alt er na te Fue ls

, 53 8 F.3 d at 97 3- 74 ; se e 2

al so Ca nn y v. Dr. Pep

pe r/ Se ven -Up Bot tl in g Grp

., In c. , 43 9 F.3 d 89 4, 90 0- 0 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at is su es no t in cl ud ed in a Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n are waiv ed an d

can no t be in cl ud ed in a Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n)

. Fo r th is reas on , we al so do no t co ns id er

Ja ck so n’s arg um en t th at th e de fam at io n cl ai m s fai le d fo r l a c k of pu bl ic at io n or

“ act ua l m al ic e.” 3

B.

The sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n ne xt co nt es t th e $3 40 ,00 0 award to Nas sa r on

hi s du e-p ro ce s s cl ai m

. The y as se rt th at th e da m ag es co ul d no t ha ve ex ceed ed th e

va lu e of th e s a l a r y an d be ne fit s rem ai ni ng on Nas sa r’s co nt ract

. Exp ert te st im on y

es ta bl is he d t ha t t hi s v al ue was ab ou t $ 24 5,6 39 .38 —$ 19 5,6 39 .38 for da m ag es fro m

th e d a t e o f N a ss ar’s fir in g un ti l th e tri al , p lu s ap pr ox im at el y $5 0,0 00 fro m th e tri al

un ti l th e en d of th e co nt ract te rm

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t c o u r t ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n in su st ai ni ng th e $3 40 ,00 0 award

, an d wit h res pe ct to th is is su e, we va cat e

an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns to off er remitt it ur

.

Tho ug h we ha ve reco gn iz ed an ex cep ti on to th is ki nd of waiv er to pr ev en t “ a 2

m an ife st m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce,” se e BE & K Co ns tr

. Co

. v. Uni te d Bhd

. of

Ca rp en te rs an d Jo in er

s of Am., AFL-CIO

, 90 F.3 d 13 18

, 13 25 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ), th e

sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n ha ve no t ad dr es se d waiv er of th es e arg um en ts at a ll , l et

a l on e as se rte d th at an ex cep ti on to waiv er ap pl ie s. Se e Alt er na te Fu e l s , 53 8 F .3d at 9 73 -7 4 & n.3

.

The de fam at io n arg um en t was no t in cl ud ed in th e Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n e i t he r. 3

W e wou ld no t co ns id er it fo r th at reas on as well

. S e e U n i t h e r m Foo d Sy s., In c. v. Sw if t-Ec kr ic h, In c. , 54 6 U.S. 3 94 (20 06 ).

-6

-The co ur t ha d in st ru ct ed th e jury to award Nas sa r t h e e c o n o m ic da m ag es

cau se d b y th e d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s, t ha t i s:

[a]ny wag es or fri ng e be ne fit s yo u f i n d th at th e pl ai nt iff wou ld ha ve

earn ed

. . . if he

. . . ha d rece iv ed th e type of he ari ng req ui red un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. In or de r to fai rly co m pe ns at e a pl ai nt iff

, an y award sh ou ld

pu t t he pl ai nt iff

in no be tt er po si ti on th an he

. . . wou ld ha ve be en in if
th e Hug he s Sch oo l Dis tri ct ha d pr ov id ed th e pl ai nt iff a he ari ng pr io r to

te rm in at io n.

The pa rti es ag ree th at th e jury was pr op erl y in st ru ct ed as to th e m eas ur e of da m ag es

. Non et he le ss , th e sc ho ol di s t r ic t an d Ja ck so n arg ue th at th e $3 40 ,00 0 award

im pr op erl y ex ceed ed th e on ly de m on st rat ed va lu e of Nas sa r’s lo st sa la ry an d be ne fit s

du rin g t he ter m

of h is co nt ract , app ro xi m at el y $2 45 ,63 9.3 8.

Alt ho ug h Nas sa r as se rts th at th is arg um en t to o was waiv ed by th e va gu e Ru le

50 (a) m ot io n or by th e la ck of ob jecti on to th e eco no m is t’s fu tu re-d am ag e ev id en ce,

we di sa gr ee. The sc ho ol di st ric t a n d J a c ks on es se nt ia ll y arg ue “ th at th e jury

in st ru ct io ns were pr op er bu t were m is ap pl ie d by th e jury

. . . res ul ti ng in an in co rrec t jud gm en t.” Am. Ban k of St

. Pau l v. TD Ban k, N.A.

, 71 3 F.3 d 45 5, 46 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ). As th e sc ho ol d i s t r i c t a n d Ja ck so n se ek ei th er a ne w tri al on th e is su e or to

am en d th e jud gm en t, “ a Ru le 59 m ot io n is th e ap pr op ria te ve hi cl e.” Id

. Adm it te dl y , th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n arg ue d th at th e award was im pr op er in th ei r Ru le 50 (b )

m ot io n, no t in a R u le 59 m ot io n. Bu t Ru le 50 (b )’s te xt ex pl ic it ly al lo ws fo r th e

in cl us io n of a Ru le 59 req ue st in a Ru le 5 0 ( b ) moti on

. Mo reo ve r, as al read y

di sc us se d, a Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n ren ews on ly th os e gr ou nd s ad va nc ed in a Ru le 50 (a)

m o t i o n , a nd he re th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n’s arg um en t wou ld ha ve be en

pr em at ur e in a Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n, whic h m us t be m ad e be fo re th e cas e is su bm it te d

to th e jury. Th e s ch oo l di st ric t an d Ja ck so n co ul d no t ha ve kn own at th at ti m e th at

th e ju r y w o u l d gr an t an ex ces si ve award

. Si m il arl y , th ei r fai lu re to ob ject to th e

eco no m is t’s te st im on y on fu tu re da m ag es do es no t m ean th ey m is se d th ei r ch an ce to

-7

-en su re th e jury fo ll owe d it s in st ru ct io ns

. As su ch

, th e arg um en t was no t waiv ed

, an d

we co ns tru e as a Ru le 59 m ot io n t ha t p art of t he Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n c ha ll en gi ng th e $3 40 ,00 0 awa r d

. S e e Mar is tu en v. Na t’l St at es In s. Co

. , 57 F.3 d 67 3, 67 9 n.4 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ) (tr eat in g a req ue st to am en d a jud gm en t as a Ru le 59 m ot io n de sp it e

refe ren ces to Ru le s 50 (b ) an d 60 (b )). W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a Ru le 59 m ot io n for

ab us e o f d i s c r et io n, Hal lma rk Ca rd s, In c. v. Mur le

y , 70 3 F.3 d 45 6, 46 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ); Tr ic key v. Ka rma n In du s. Tech s. Co rp

. , 70 5 F.3 d 78 8, 80 7- 08 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ),

an d “ we m ay rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a Ru le 59 m ot io n whe re it s jud gm en t

res ts on an erro ne ou s le ga l st an da rd ,” Pul la v. Amoco Oil Co

. , 72 F.3 d 64 8, 65 6 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ).

On ap pe al

, Nas sa r do es no t at te m pt to de fen d th e $3 4 0

, 0 0 0 award ex cep t to

arg ue th at it in cl ud ed “ fro nt pa y ,” an eq ui ta bl e rem ed y fro m ou r di sc riminat io n cas es ,

se e, e.g

. , New ho us e v. M c C o r m i c k & Co

., In c. , 11 0 F.3 d 63 5, 63 9, 64 1 (8 th Ci r.

19 97 ). Cl ai m in g th at “ fu tu re lo ss is syno nym ou s wit h fro nt pa y ,” Nas sa r’s eco no m is t

te st ifi ed th at th e pr e s en t va lu e of Nas sa r’s se ve n- y ear fro nt pa y was $2 83 ,57 7.7 7.
Tog et he r wit h pa st da m ag es of $1 95 ,63 9.3 8, th i s a mo u n t far ex ceed s wha t th e jury

award ed

, an d th us , Nas sa r arg u e s , t h e $ 34 0,0 00 award was jus ti fie d. Fro nt pa y , ho wev er, m ay be award ed on ly by a co ur t, n ot by a j ur y

. Id

. at 6 41 -4 3. Ev en if we

as su m e th at fro nt pa y is av ai la bl e as a rem ed y fo r a du e-p ro ces s vi ol at io n, it was erro r

fo r th e co ur t t o a ll ow t he jury to award it

. 4

Eve n as su m in g fu rth er th at th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n co ns en te d to a jury 4

de te rm in at io n an d th at fro nt pa y is no t so le ly wit hi n th e co ur t’s a ut ho rit y , we st il l
be li ev e th at th e jury d id no t fo ll o w i t s i n s tru ct io n th at it award on ly t ho se da m ag es

ca us ed by th e de ni a l o f d u e pr oc es s. Bas ed on th e ev id en ce pr es en te d by Nas sa r’s

eco no mi s t

, th e award ne ces sa ril y in cl ud ed lo st sa la ry an d be ne fit s be y on d th e te rm of Nas sa r’s co nt ract

. The award th us as su m es th at Nas sa r’s co nt ract wou ld ha ve be en

ren ewed if he ha d rece iv ed a pr op er he ari ng

. Nas sa r’s br ie f, ho wev er, po in ts us to no

ev id en ce su gg es ti ng su ch ren ewal

. Se e Tu ss ey v. ABB, In c. , 74 6 F.3d 32 7, 33 9 (8 th
Ci r.) (fi nd in g da m ag es sp ecu la ti ve whe re pl ai nt iff s di d no t ci te ev id en ce su pp or ti ng

-8

-W it ho ut th e im pr op er fro nt pa y , th e on ly ev id en ce of t h e va lu e of Nas sa r’s

sa la ry an d be ne fit s du rin g th e te rm of hi s co nt ract was th e eco no m is t’s es ti m at e of

$2 45 ,63 9.3 8. The di st ric t cou rt sh ou ld of fer rem it ti tu r to th at am ou nt

. Se e Rac ic ky

v. Far mla nd In du s., In c. , 32 8 F.3 d 38 9, 40 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). I f N a s s a r d o es no t

co ns en t t o re m it ti tu r, th e co ur t s ho ul d c on du ct a ne w tri al on th is is su e. Se e id

.

C.

Co m in g to th e mat t e r o f fees

, “ [w]e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s award of

at to rn ey ’s fees fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Mil le r v. Dug an , 76 4 F.3 d 82 6, 83 0 (8 th Ci r.

2 0 1 4 )

. The sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n arg ue (1 ) th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op e r l y

en ha nc ed th e fee award to Nas sa r an d Sm it h so le ly be cau se of th ei r co nt i n ge nc y

as su m pt io n ne ces sa ry to da m ag e award ), cer t. de ni ed

, 13 5 S. Ct

. 47 7 (2 01 4) ; se e al so M c K e n zi e Eng ’g Co

. v. NLRB

, 37 3 F.3 d 88 8, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (m od ifyi n g a n award as su m in g c e r t a in du rat io ns of em pl oym en t whe re th e as su m pt io ns were

“ su pp or te d by ne it he r [th e em pl oyer’s] pa st hi st or y as an em pl oyer, no r [th e rel ev an t]

wor ke rs ’ pa st em

pl oym en t hi st or ie s” ). Thi s is no t a cas e in whi ch Nas sa r’s co nt ract ha d be en ren ewed ti m e an d t i me a g a i n

. Cf

. La rc h v. Man sf

ie ld Mun

. Elec

. Dep t.

, 27 2 F.3 d 63

, 73 -7 5 (1 st Ci r. 20 01 ). Rat he r, th is is a cas e fr o m a ge ne ral ly at -wil l

em pl oym en t st at e, se e Cr aw fo rd Cn ty

. v. Jo ne s , 23 2 S.W .3d 43 3, 43 8 (Ark

. 20 06 ),
in whi ch Nas sa r’s co nt ract ha d be en ren ewed on ly on ce an d in whi ch bo ard m em be rs

were op en ly ho st il e to Nas sa r. W it ho ut so m e ev id en ce th at th e co nt ract wou ld ha ve be en ren ewed bu t fo r th e de ni al of du e pr oc es s, th e ev id en ce of po st -co nt ract da m ag es

was irr el ev an t, se e Fed

. R. Evi d. 10 4( b)

, an d th e fro nt -p ay award was im pr op er, whe th er co ns en te d to or no t. W e reco gn iz e th at th e Sev en th Ci rcu it h a s a l lo wed a d e f e n d a nt to co ns en t im

pl ic it ly to a jury award of fro nt pa y in a tra di ti on a l
di sc ri mi n a t i on su it

. Se e Pal s v. Sc he pe l Bui ck & GMC Tr uc k, In c. , 22 0 F.3 d 49 5,
50 0- 0 1 ( 7 t h C i r

. 20 00 ). Bu t in th es e sp eci fic ci rcu m st an ces , we th in k th e pa rti al
di ss en t ex pa nd s co ns en t on on e is su e to o far in to u nc ha rte d le ga l te rri to ry

. The

sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n’s fai lu re to ob je c t t o irr el ev an t ev id en ce di d no t al so

ap pr ov e th e d ou bl y

no ve l i de a th at th e jury cou ld award fro nt pa y on a d ue -p ro ces s cl ai m

.

-9

-ag reem en t wit h th ei r at to rn ey s an d (2 ) th at th e award was ba se d on im pr op erl y bl oc kbi ll ed reco rd s.

The sc ho ol di st ric t and Jac ks on arg ue th at in de te rm in in g att or ne y ’s fees

, th e

di st ric t co ur t im

pr op erl y award ed Nas sa r an d Sm it h’s le ad co un se l $3 75 pe r ho ur ,
rat he r th a n h i s u s u a l rat e of $2 50 pe r ho ur , so le ly be cau se co un se l wor ke d on

co nt in ge nc y

. Se e New ho us e , 11 0 F.3 d at 64 4 (“ [A]n en ha nc em en t ab ov e th e lo de st ar

fee f or co nt in ge nc y

is no t p erm it te d.” ). Tho ug h t he sch oo l d is tri ct an d J ack so n d id

no t rai se th e is su e in th e di st ric t co ur t, th ey “ co ul d no t an ti ci pa te ” th i s ou tc om e,

“ whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t in tro du ced in it s or de r.” Uni te d St at es v. Hur t

, 67 6 F.3 d 64 9,

65 2- 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). As su ch

, th ey di d no t waiv e th e is su e. Id

. Bu t th ey are

wro ng on th e m eri ts

. The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ic it ly ack no wled ge d th at it co u l d no t

en ha nc e th e fee award so le ly be cau se of a co n t in ge nt fee ag reem en t. Rat he r, it

ex pl ai ne d th at it en ha nc ed th e rat e of Nas sa r a n d Sm it h’s le ad co un se l sp eci fic al ly

be cau se of hi s ex pe rie nc e an d hi s “ su pe rio r le ga l an d ad vo cacy sk il ls ” in th e cas e.

The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n as the sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n

ha ve arg ue d.

The sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n al so e x t r a p o l at e fro m ou r ge ne ral ru le th at

“ [i]na de qu at e do cu m en ta t i o n may warra nt a red uc ed fee.” H.J. In c. v. Flyg t Co rp

. , 92 5 F.2 d 25 7, 26 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ). The y co nt en d th at th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve red uc ed

th e a w a r d be cau se th e ti m e en tri es of Nas sa r an d Sm it h’s at to rn ey s were “ bl oc kbi ll ed , pre ve nt in g m ean in gf ul an al y si s of th e ti m e sp en t on each di sc ret e ta sk .” As

ou r si st er ci rcu it ha s no te d, th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ su pe rio r u n d e rs ta nd in g of th e

li ti ga ti on ” cau ti on s ag ai ns t “ ap pe ll at e r ev ie w of m in ut ia [e].” Far fa ra s v. Ci ti

ze ns

Ban k an d Tr us t of Ch i.

, 43 3 F.3 d 55 8, 56 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Sp el la n v. Bd. of

Edu c. fo r Dis t. 1 11

, 59 F.3 d 64 2, 64 5 (7 th Ci r. 19 95 )). W e ag ai n fin d no ab us e of

di sc ret io n.

-1 0-Non et he le ss , we no t e t h at “ th e res ul ts ob ta in ed ” is on e fact or rel ev an t to a

co ur t’s cal cu la ti on of f

e es

. Se e Hen sl ey v. Ecker ha rt

, 46 1 U.S. 42 4, 43 5 (1 98 3)

. Thu s, tho ug h we affi rm th e fee award wit h resp ect to th e arg um en ts rai se d h ere, we

va cat e a n d rem an d fo r reco ns id erat io n in li gh t of ou r ho ld in g va cat in g Nas sa r’s

$3 40 ,00 0 award

. Se e Qui gl ey v. W

in te r , 59 8 F.3 d 93 8, 95 8 n.7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(n ot in g “ th at th e us ua l pr oc ed ur e is to rem an d an y fu rth er co ns id erat io n of an at to rn ey

fee a ward to th e d is tri ct co ur t” ). W e le av e al te rat io n o f th e fee , if an y , to th e so un d

di sc ret io n o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

III.

Fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d, we affi rm in pa rt an d va cat e in pa rt, rem an di ng fo r

fu rth er p ro ceed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I d i s a gr ee th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n di d no t waiv e th ei r ab il it y t o

ch al le ng e th e $3 40 ,00 0 award to Nas sa r on hi s du e-p ro ces s cl ai m

. In st ead

, I be li ev e

th e jury p r o p e r ly co ns id ered th e ev id en ce pr es en te d wit hi n th e pr ov id ed jury

in st ru ct io ns

. I th eref

or e res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m Part II.B. of th e de ci si on rev ers in g

th e d is tri ct co ur t. I co nc ur in all ot he r as pe ct s o f th e m ajor it y op in io n.

Fi rs t, t he sch oo l di st ric t and Ja ck so n all owe d Dr. Ral ph Sco tt to te st ify ab ou t

Nas sa r’s fu tu re in co m e an d fri ng e be ne fit lo ss es wit ho ut an ap pr op ria te ob jecti on or

li m it at io n. Alt ho ug h co un se l fo r th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n po se d an ob jecti on , th e ob jecti on pe rta in ed to Dr. Sco tt ’s of feri ng of a na rrat iv e rat h e r th an Dr. Sco tt ’s

ab il it y to of

fer te st i mo n y r e ga rd in g fu tu re lo ss es

. In st ead

, co un se l in di cat ed he

-1 1-r e al iz ed Dr. Sco tt was an ex pe rt an d was “ al lo wed to gi ve hi s te st im o n y.”

App el l a n t s’s App

. 23 3. “ W it ho ut an ob jecti on an d a pr op er req ue st fo r rel ie f, [a]

m at te r is waiv ed an d wil l rece iv e no co ns id erat io n on ap pe al ab se nt pl ai n erro r.”

McKn ig h t ex rel

. Lud wig v. Jo hn so n Co nt ro ls

, In c., 36 F.3 d 13 96

, 14 07 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The to ta l am ou nt to whi ch Dr.

Sco tt te st ifi ed

, in cl ud in g bo th pa st an d fu tu re in co m e an d fri ng e be ne fit s lo ss es ,

ex ceed ed $3 40 ,00 0, an d ne it he r th e sc ho ol di st ric t no r J a c k s o n pr es en te d an y

ev id en ce co nt rad ic ti ng th es e am ou nt s.

Fu rth er , ev en tho ug h fro nt pa y , whi ch Nas sa r arg ue s is syno nym ou s wit h fu tu re

lo ss es , m ay be award ed by th e di st ric t co ur t in it s di sc ret io n, se e Mat hi eu v. Gop he r

News C o

. , 2 7 3 F.3 d 76 9, 77 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n

co ns en te d to it s co ns id erat io n by th e jury by fai li ng to ob ject to Dr. Sco tt ’s te st im on y

. See Whi ti ng v. J ack so n St at e Uni v., 61 6 F .2d 11 6, 1 23 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) (“ By fai li ng

to ob ject, th e pa rti es ag reed th at th e jury’ s ve rd ic t on th e cl ai m s fo r eq ui ta bl e rel ie f

was to ha ve th e sa m e effe ct as if a rig ht to a jury tria l ex is te d.” ); se e al so Bro ad na x

v. Cit y of Ne w Hav en , 41 5 F.3d 26 5, 27 2 (2d Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ [W] he n a pa rty de m an ds

a jury co ns id erat io n of lo st wag es

. . . a n d t h e pa rty’ s op po ne nt fai ls to ob ject,
[Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e] 3 9( c) pe rm it s th e d i s t r i c t co ur t to su bm it th e lo st

wag es is su e fo r a no n- ad vi so ry jury de te rm in at io n.” ); Pal s v. Sch ep el Bu ic k & GMC

Truc k, In c., 22 0 F.3 d 49 5

, 50 1 (7 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (fi nd in g th e pa rti es co ns en te d to th e jury de ci di ng fro nt pa y be cau se ne it he r pa rty ob jecte d, res ul ti ng in jury co ns id erat io n

of th e is su e un de r Ru le 39 (c) an d an im pl ie d co ns en t to am en d th e pl ead in gs un de r

Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 15 (b )); Bere da v. Pi ck eri ng Cree k In du s. Park

, In c.,

86 5 F.2 d 49

, 52 (3 d Ci r. 19 89 ) (h ol di ng th at whe re bo th pa rti es “ req ue st ed a jury tri al

an d th e su bjec t of an ad vi so ry jury was ne ve r m en ti o ne d at an y ti m e du rin g th e

pr oc eed in gs , [th e pl ai nt iff ] an d [th e de fen da nt ] m

us t be de em ed to ha ve co ns en te d to

a tri a l b y a n on ad vi so ry jury un de r Ru le 39 (c)” ). Add it io na ll y , “ ha vi ng juri es

cal cu la te lo st wag es req ui res no sp eci al co m pe te nc e or au th or it y be lo ng in g so le ly to

-1 2-th e co ur t.” Br oa dn ax , 41 5 F.3d at 27 2. I fu rth er “ fin d s en si bl e th e p ro po si ti on th at

whe re a pa rty req ue st s a jury de te rm i n a ti on of an is su e req ui rin g no sp eci al

co m pe te nc e or au th or it y be lo ng in g so le ly to th e co ur t, an d th e ot he r pa rty or pa rti es

f a i l t o o bjec t, su ch si le nc e m ay be de em ed ‘con se nt ’ un de r Ru le 39 (c).” Id

. A c co rd in gl y , co nt rary to th e m ajor it y ’s de te rm in at io n, an te at 9, m ut ua l i mp l i e d

co ns en t by Nas sa r, th e sc ho ol di st ric t, an d Ja ck so n su pp or ts th e ju r y’s a ut ho rit y to

res ol ve th e is su e of fro nt pa y whi ch wou ld no rm al ly be de ci de d by th e c o u r t

. See

Pal s, 22 0 F.3 d at 50 1. The sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n al s o fai le d to m ak e an y

arg um en ts or ci te cas e la w st an di ng fo r th e pr op os it io n th at fro nt pa y is no t a rem ed y

av ai la bl e to Nass ar.

The jury, th erea fte r, co nt rary to th e sc h o ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n’s arg um en t,

pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e jury in st ru ct io ns to th e ev id en ce whi ch was pr es en te d. See CSX

Tran sp ., In c. v. Hen sl ey , 5 56 U.S. 8 38 , 8 41 (2 0 0 9 ) ( “In th os e cas es , a s in al l cas es , juri es are pr es um ed to fo ll ow th e co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns .”). Alt ho ug h th e m ajor it y ci te s

to an in st ru ct io n th e di st ric t co ur t pr ov id ed to th e jury, th e la ng ua ge ci te d is on ly an

e xc erp t of th e in st ru ct io n. See an te at 7. In st ead , t he in st ru ct io n br oa dl y st a t e s t h e jury m us t award Nas sa r an am ou nt of m on ey fo r an y da mag es he su st ai ne d as a res ul t

of th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. App el la nt s’s App

. 94

. It th en pr ov id e s th e award

sh ou ld m erel y pu t Nass ar in no be tt er po si ti on th an he wou ld ha ve ha d if th e sc ho ol

d i s t r ic t ha d pr ov id ed hi m a he ari ng

. Id

. Abs en t is an y li m it at io n as to th e sp eci f i c

ki nd s of da m ag es th e jury m ay award or th e ti m e pe rio d ov er wh ic h t ho se da m ag es

m ay be award ed

. Alt ho ug h th e in st ru ct io n ne xt pr ov id es an el em en t of da m ag es to 5

co ns id er, it do es no t di rect th e jury to m ak e th is el em e n t i ts so le co ns id erat io n fo r

Alt ho ug h th e in st ru ct io n la te r pr ov id e d a ti m e li m it at io n to th e am ou nt of 5

wag es an d fri ng e be ne fit s whi ch t h e ju r y c o ul d ha ve award ed

, th e jury fo un d th e

sc ho ol di st ric t fail ed to carr y it s bu rd en to m ak e th e ti m e li m it at io n app li cab le

. See

A p p el la nt s’s App

. 78

, 94 -9 5. The sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n do no t ap pe a l t h i s fin di ng

.

-1 3-da m ag es

. Id

. Add it io na ll y , th e el em en t it se lf pr ov id es a br oa de r co ns id erat io n th an

th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d Ja ck so n arg ue , di rect in g th e jury to co ns id er t h e w a g e s an d

fri ng e b en efi ts whi ch Nass ar wo ul d h av e ear ne d i n hi s emp lo ymen t wit h th e sc ho ol

di st ric t in st ead of th os e wag es an d fri ng e be ne fit s whi ch rem ai ne d ba se d on hi s

co nt ract . Id.

The pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e in st ru c t i o n as a who le th eref or e refu te s th e sc ho ol

di st ric t an d Ja ck so n’s arg um en t th at “ th e m eas ur e of [Nas sa r’s ] da m ag es was th e

am ou nt of wag es an d fri ng e be ne fit s rem ai n i n g on hi s co nt ract at th e ti m e of hi s

te rm in at io n.” App el la nt s’s Br. 37

. A reas on ab le jury co ul d read th is in st ru ct io n an d

co nc lu de Nas sa r’s da m ag e s a w ard ex te nd ed be y on d th e wag es an d fri ng e be ne fit s

rem ai ni ng un de r th e co nt ract

. If t h e s ch oo l di st ric t an d Nas sa r be li ev ed da m ag es

sh ou ld ha ve be en award ed on th is na rro w b as is , a n o bjec ti on to th e in st ru ct io n was

warra nt ed

. Bec au se th ey fai le d to ob ject, th ey waiv ed th ei r ab il it y to no w arg ue th e jury im pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e jury in st ru ct io ns on th is ba si s. See Niem ie c v. Uni on Pac.

R.R. Co

., 4 4 9 F .3d 85 4, 85 7- 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ A p art y ’s f ai lu re to ob

ject to jury

in st ru ct io ns res ul ts in a waiv er o f th at ob jecti on , ab se nt a sh owi ng of pl ai n e rro r.”).

I fu rth er co nc lu de th ere was no pl ai n e rro r in th is cas e. See id

. (fi nd in g pl ai n e rro r,

“ es pe ci al ly in th e ci vi l con te xt

. . . m us t re su lt in a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e in ord er to

co m pe l re ve rs al ”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Fo r th es e reas on s, I wou ld fin d th e sc ho ol di st ric t a n d Ja ck so n waiv ed th ei r

ab il it y to ch al le ng e th e $ 34 0,0 00 award an d wo ul d a ffi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-