# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 14 06

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Teres a Ma nn in g, fo rm erl y kn own as Ter es a R. Wagn er

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Caro lyn Jo ne s, Dean
, Io wa Co ll eg e of Law (in he r of fic ia l an d in di vi du al cap aci ti es )

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Gail B. Agr awal, D ea

n, Io w a Co lle ge of Law (in he r of fic ia l an d in di vi du al cap aci ti es )

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

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 17 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 7, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re LOKEN, ARNOLD , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
ARNOLD, Circu it Ju dg e.

Teres a Man ni ng rep eat ed ly ap pl ie d wit ho ut su cces s to te ach le ga l an al y si s an d
writ in g at th e Uni ve rs it y of Io wa Co ll eg e of Law. Sh e c o n te nd s th at , du rin g th epr oc es s at te nd in g he r f i r st ap pl ic at io n, an as so ci at e de an ad vi se d he r no t to te ll th e f a c u l t y , on ly on e of who m was a reg is te red Rep ub li can , th at a co ns erv at iv e la w

sc ho ol ha d on ce of

fere d he r a fu ll -ti m e te ach in g po si ti o n

. Man ni ng 's rés um é,

m ean whi le
, m ad e pl ai n he r affi li at io n wit h c on se rv at iv e gr ou ps

. Cl ai m in g th at th e de an of th e Co ll eg e of La w ha d reject ed he r ap pl ic at io ns du e to po li ti cal
di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, Man ni ng su ed th e de an un de r 42 U.S.C § 1 98 3.

Thi s is ou r th ird pa ss at th is cas e. Se e W ag ne r v. Jo ne s , 66 4 F.3 d 25 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( W ag ne r I ); W ag ne r v. Jo ne s , 75 8 F.3 d 10 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) ( W ag ne r II ). Afte r th e se co nd rem an d, M a n n in g pr oc eed ed to tri al be fo re a jury, whe re th e de an de fen de d he rs el f by as se rti ng , a m on g ot he r th in gs , t ha t Man ni ng 's a pp li cat io ns ha d
be en reject ed on th ei r m eri ts

. The jury fo un d th at Man ni ng di d no t es ta bl is h th at th e de an ha d di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t he r on th e ba si s of he r po li ti cs , an d th e di st ric t co ur t 1
de ni ed he r m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. On ap pe al
, Man ni ng co nt es ts on ly th e de ni al of he r

ne w-tr ia l m ot io n, an d we a ffi rm

.

The ro ut in e fai lu re of th e ap pe ll an t's m ai n br ie f to ci te th e "p art s of th e reco rd

on whi ch [sh e] reli es ," se e Fed . R. App . P. 28 (a)( 8) (A), ha s co ns id erab ly ham pe red

ou r rev ie w of t hi s ca se . W e can no t t el l wh et he r th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in a ru li ng if
Man ni ng do es no t d ire ct us to a pl ace i n t he reco rd wher e we can fin d it , a nd so we

co ns id er on ly th os e co nt en ti on s th at in cl ud e ap pr op ria te ci ta ti on s. ASARCO, LLC v. Uni on Pac . R.R. Co

. , 7 62 F.3 d 74 4, 75 3 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 4 )

. We r e v ie w t he de ni al of a

m ot io n fo r a n e w t r i a l fo r a cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n, wit h th e ke y qu es ti on be in g wh e th er a ne w tri al is ne ces sa ry to pr ev en t a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Din di ng er v. All st eel , Inc

. , 85 3 F .3d 41 4, 4 21 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7)

.

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-Man ni ng m ai nt a in s th at th e di st ric t co ur t m is le d th e jury in it s in it ia l

in st ru ct io ns whe n, in su m m ari zi ng th e cas e, it st at ed th at th e de an was go in g to arg ue th at sh e was "o bl ig ed " to fo ll ow th e facu lt y 's hi rin g reco m m en da ti on

. Si nc e Man ni ng do es no t te ll us whe re we can fin d th e co nt es te d in st ru ct io n in th e reco rd
, we do no t

co ns id er h er argu m en t. She m ai nt ai ns as well th at th e di st ric t cou rt c om po un de d i ts

erro r whe n it d i d n o t c u r e it in it s fin al in st ru ct io ns , bu t si nc e we ha ve de cl in ed to

co ns id er whe th er th e in it ia l in st ru ct io n was erro r, we can ha rd ly ho ld th at th e fai lu re
to co rrec t th at in st ru ct io n was erro r. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Y

or k
, 83 0 F.2 d 88 5, 88 9– 90 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (p er cu ria m). To th e ex te nt th at Man ni ng arg ue s th at th e fin al
in st ru ct io n was erro ne ou s, s h e n e i th er qu ot es th e la ng ua ge of th at in st ru ct io n, no r di rect s us to a pl a c e i n t h e reco rd it can be fo un d. So we do no t co ns id er th is

arg um en t, ei th er.

W e co ns id er ne xt Man ni ng 's as se rti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ru li ng th at th e de an co ul d arg ue th at sh e was no t ul ti m at el y res po ns ib l e fo r th e la w sc ho ol 's
hi ri n g

. A c c or di ng to Man ni ng , t he de an sh ou ld ha ve be en ba rred fro m m ak in g th at
arg um en t be cau se du rin g th e or al arg um en t of th e se co nd ap pe al th e de an su pp os ed ly

m ad e a bi nd in g jud ic ia l ad m is si on of he r res po ns ib il it y , an d be cau se we de ci de d th e fact of he r res po ns ib il it y in ou r op in io n res ol vi ng th at ap pe al

. Eve n if we were to

c o ns tru e th is co nt en ti on as di rect ed at th e de ni al of he r ne w-tr ia l m ot io n, M a n n i n g do es no t id en ti fy whe re in th e reco rd th e di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng or ru li ng s to ok pl ace. So we de cl in e to ad dr es s h er co nt en ti on

.

W ere we to ad dr es s th e co nt en ti on , it wou ld st il l fai l. Alt ho ug h th e pa rti es se em
to ag ree ge ne ral ly o n th e wor di ng of th e al le ge d ad m is si on , t he ir m in im al is t sk et ch
of th e ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch it was m ad e won 't al lo w us to fin d t h a t i t h a d t he
fo rm al it y or th e co nc lu si ve ne ss th at Man ni ng as cri be s to it

. Cf

. Ban ni st er v. Delo
, 10 0
F. 3 d 6 1 0
, 62 2 n.1 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). In de ci di ng th e se co nd ap pe al
, m or eo ve r, we

co ul d ha rd ly ha ve in te nd ed to us ur p th e jury's rig ht to de te rm in e th e fact ua l is su e of
th e de an 's res po ns ib il it y

. W e d i d i n d e ed sa y th at "[t ]he reco rd es ta bl is he s th at

-3

-al th ou gh th e Co ll eg e of Law us e s a m ul ti face te d pr oc es s fo r rece iv in g ad vi ce an d

co ns en t fro m rel ev a n t l y in vo lv ed facu lt y an d st aff,

. . . t he Dean ha s fin al au th or it y

an d res po ns ib il it y fo r th e ex erci se of th e Co ll eg e's em pl oym en t act io ns ." W

ag ne r II
, 75 8 F.3 d at 10 32 n. 1

. B u t th at st at em en t was di ct um on ly. The ex te nt of th e de an 's

au t h or it y was ne ve r in is su e in th at ap pe al
, an d, as we no te d in de ci di ng th e fir st

ap pe al
, whe th er th e de an "h ad th e ab il it y to hi re [Ma nn in g] ab se nt th e facu lt y 's vo te is a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact th at th e jury, no t th e co ur t, sh ou ld de ci de ."
W ag ne r I , 66 4 F .3d at 2 74 –7 5.

Man ni ng al so m ai nt ai ns th at sh e was en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on he r di sc riminat io n cl ai m

. Bu t sh e di d no t rai se th is arg um en t in he r ne w-tr ia l m ot io n,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t d e c i d e it in de nyin g th e m ot io n. Si nc e Man ni ng ha s
ap pe al ed on ly th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of he r m ot io n, no t th e jud gm en t en te red up on th e jur y's v e r d i c t, we la ck juri sd ic ti on to he ar th is arg um en t. Se e Ros il lo v. Hol te n , 81 7 F .3d 59 5, 5 97 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

Man ni ng ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on no t to ad m it th e de an 's sa la ry in to ev id en ce. Si nc e Man ni ng fai ls to te ll us whe re th e sa la ry in fo rm at io n an d th e de ci si on as to it s adm is si bi li ty can be fo un d in th e reco rd
, we de cl in e to ad dr es s th e is su e. Her ch al le ng e to th e di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng no t to ad m it an e-m ai l in to ev id en ce fare s sl ig ht ly be tt er be cau se sh e po in ts us to th e pl ace in th e reco rd whe re th e e-m ai l

an d th e ru li ng can be fo un d. Bu t we do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on to d e c i d e t h i s m at te r be cau se Man ni ng di d no t rai se it in he r ne w-tr ia l m ot io n, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t de ci de it in de nyin g t he m ot io n. Se e Ros il lo , 81 7 F .3d at 5 97

.

A fin al as si gn m en t of erro r ta ke s is su e wit h th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on no t to in st ru ct th e jury on pu ni ti ve da m ag es

. The is su e is m oo t in li gh t of th e jury's ve rd ic t. Se e La nd sc ap e Pro ps ., Inc

. v. Vog el , 46 F.3d 14 16 , 14 26 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.

Affi rm ed

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
-4

-