## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T



## ___________

No. 1 1- 27 58

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su sa n B au er, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn
* Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Cu rat or s o f th e * Uni ve rs it y

of M is so ur i, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 4, 2 01 2 Fil ed : J un e 6 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Su sa n Bau er, a n a dv an ced pr act ic al nu rs e at th e Uni ve rs it y of Mi ss ou ri
Hos pi ta l an d Cl in ic s, su ed th e Bo ard of C u r a to rs , al le gi ng a vi ol at io n of th e Equ al Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 20 6( d)

. Sh e cl ai m ed sh e was pa id l e s s t h a n a m al e who

pe rfo rm ed su bs ta nt ia ll y eq ua l wor k un d e r s im il ar wor ki ng co nd it io ns

. The di st ric t

co ur t, ov er Bau er’s ob

jecti on , ga ve th e bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n: “ You m ay no t
ret ur n a ve rd ic t fo r th e pl ai nt iff jus t be cau se y ou m ig ht di sa gr ee wit h th e de fen da nt ’s de ci si on or be li ev e it to be ha rs h or un reas on ab le .” Se e 8t h Cir. Civ

. Ju ry In st

. 5.9 4

. The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t fo r th e Cu rat or s. Bau er m ov ed fo r a ne w tri al
, a rg ui ngth at th e in st ru ct io n sh ou ld no t be gi ve n in an EPA cas e. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e

m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s.

Gen eral ly, th is co ur t rev ie ws a di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns to th e jury fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Niem ie c v. U n i o n Pac . R .R. Co

. , 4 49 F.3 d 85 4, 85 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ).
Eve n if a di st ric t cou rt erro ne ou sl y in st ru ct s a jury, th is co ur t reve rs es “ ‘onl y whe re th e erro r affe ct s th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e pa rti es .’ ” McC oy v. Aug us ta Fi

be rg la ss Co at in gs , In c. , 5 9 3 F.3 d 73 7, 74 4- 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), qu ot in g Br ow n v. Sa nd al s Res or ts Int ’l , 28 4 F .3d 94 9, 9 53 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

The Cu rat or s argu e th at Bau er’s objec ti on s at t ria l d id no t p res erv e th e is su e. To pr es erv e a jury-in st ru ct io n is su e f o r a pp el la te rev ie w, a pa rty m us t “ m ak e a
sp eci fic ob

jecti on th at di st in ct ly st at e[s ] th e m at te r ob jecte d to an d th e gr ou nd s fo r th e ob jecti on .” Al

le n v. Ent er gy Co rp . , 19 3 F.3 d 10 10
, 10 14 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Se e Fed.
R. Civ

. P. 51 (c)( 1)

. An ob jecti on m u s t be sp eci fic
, pr eci se en ou gh to al lo w th e di st ric t co ur t to ad dr es s an y pr ob le m s an d av oi d a ret ria l. Al le n , 1 9 3 F.3 d at 10 13

. A ge n e r a l o bjec ti on to a jury in st ru ct io n, ev en whe n it en co m pa ss es a sp eci fic ob jecti on , is in su ffi ci en t. Id

. at 10 14

.

If a pa rty do es no t pr op erl y ob ject to pr es erv e th e is su e fo r ap pe al
, ob jecti on s
to jury in st ru ct io ns are waiv ed
, ab se nt a sh owi ng of pl ai n e rro r. Niem ie c , 44 9 F .3d

at 85 7- 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ); Fed. R. Civ

. P. 51 (d)( 2 )

. P l a i n erro r ex is ts if: (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t de vi at es fro m a le ga l ru le ; (2 ) th e erro r is cl ear un de r cu rren t la w; an d, (3 ) th e erro r affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, whi c h o rd in ari ly m ean s th at th e erro r affe ct s th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in gs

. Unit ed St at es v . O l an o , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 2- 35 (1 99 3)

. Pl ai n erro r wil l no t be co rrec te d un le ss (4 ) it “ se rio us ly affe ct [s ] th e in te gr it y , fai rn es s, or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Ka pl an v. Ma yo Cl in ic
, 65 3
F.3 d 72 0, 72 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), ci ti ng Ra hn v. Ha wk in s , 46 4 F.3d 81 3, 81 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ).

-2

-Dur in g a co nf eren ce ou ts id e th e he ari ng of th e jury, B a u e r o b jecte d to th e bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n. Bau er st at ed th at th e in st ru ct io n is “ qu it e co nf us in g,”

no t “ pl ai n la ng ua ge ,” “ do es n’t ai d th e jury,” an d im pl ie s t h a t th e pl ai nt iff ha s th e bu rd en to pr ov e an in te nt th at sa la ry di sp ari ty was di sc riminat or y

. Afte r Bau er m ad e he r ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t qu ot ed th e co m m en t to th e m od el in st ru ct io n, no ti ng W al ker v. AT& T Tech no lo gi es , 99 5 F.2 d 84 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). The di st ric t co ur t th en
st at ed : “ I’m go in g to gi ve [th e in st ru ct io n] be cau se I do n’t li ke
, th at AT&T cas e co ul d be a pr ob le m

. It co ul d be rev ers ib le

. I’m no t – y ou can m ak e y ou r ob jecti on , bu t I’m
go in g to go ah ead an d gi ve [th e in st ru ct io n].” The di st ric t co ur t un de rs to od Bau er’s ob jecti on bu t be li ev ed th at th e bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n sh ou ld be gi ve n du e to th e AT& T cas e. Thi s ob

jecti on was pr es erv ed an d is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Gen de r di sc riminat io n cl ai m s m ay be br ou gh t un de r bo th Tit le VII an d th e Equ al Pay Act, bu t th e la ws di ffer

. The EPA, a st ric t li ab il it y st at ut e, do es no t req ui re pl ai nt iff s to pr ov e th at an em

pl oyer act ed wit h di sc riminat or y in te nt ; pl ai nt iff s ne ed sh ow on ly th at an em

pl oyer pa y s m al es m or e th an fem al es

. St re ck er v. Gra nd Fo rk

s Co unt y So c. Ser v. Bd

. , 64 0 F.2 d 96
, 99 n.1 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ), re v’d on ot he r gr ou nd s , Pull m an -St an da rd v. Swi nt , 45 6 U.S. 27 3 (1 98 2)

. Se e Mi ck el so n v. New Y

or k Life
In s. Co

. , 46 0 F .3d 13 04 , 13 10 -1 1 (1 0t h C ir. 2 00 6) . To av oi d li ab il it y , an em pl oyer

m us t sh ow th at an y pa y di sp ar i t y is jus ti fie d by (1 ) a se ni or it y syste m ; (2 ) a m eri t syste m; ( 3 ) a p a y syste m ba se d on qu an ti ty or qu al it y of ou tp ut ; or (4 ) a di sp ari ty ba se d on an y ot he r fact or ot he r th an se x. Se e Pri ce v. Nor th er n St at e s Po w e r C

o . , 66 4 F .3d 11 86 , 11 91 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; 29 U.S.C. § 20 6( d)(1 )

.

Und er Tit le VII, th e bu rd en o f p e r s u a d i ng th e tri er of fact th at an em pl oyer in te nt io na ll y di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t th e pl ai nt iff al way s rem ai ns wit h th e pl ai nt iff

. Tex as Dep t. of Co m m uni ty Affa ir s v. Bur di ne , 45 0 U.S. 24 8, 25 2- 55 (1 98 1 ) ; 42
U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2

. Afte r a pr im a faci e cas e of un la wfu l di sc riminat io n is es ta bl is he d, th e em pl oyer m ay as se rt “ a le gi ti mat e , no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r it s ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n.” Bur di ne , 45 0 U.S. at 25 2- 55

. The n, th e em pl oyee m ay pr es en t

-3

-ev id en ce th at th e em pl oyer’s reas on s are pr et ex tu al

. Id

. An em pl oyer un de r th e EPA

carr ie s th e bu rd en of pe rs ua si on an d m us t pr ov e an affi rm at iv e de fen se ; a Tit le VII de fen da nt ne ed on ly arti cu la te a de fen se

.

Bec au se an em

pl oyer is “ en ti tl ed to m ak e it s own su bjec ti ve pe r s on ne l de ci si on s

. . . fo r an y reas on th at is no t di sc riminat or y ” un de r Tit le VII, th is co ur t

re qui res di st ric t co ur ts , on req ue st , to gi ve th e bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n in a Tit le
VII cas e. AT&T Techno lo gi es , 99 5 F.2 d at 84 9; 8t h Cir. Civ

. Ju ry In st r. 5.9 4 cmt

. Thi s lo gi c, ho wev er, is irr el ev a n t un de r th e EPA. “ Und er th e EPA, a de fen da nt

can no t es cap e li ab il it y m erel y by art ic ul at in g a le gi ti m at e no n- di sc riminat or y reas on fo r th e em pl oym en t act io n. Rat he r, th e de fen da nt m us t pr ov e th at th e pa y di ffer en ti al

was ba se d on a fact or ot he r th an se x.” Si m ps on v. Mer cha nt

s & Pla nt er s Ba nk
, 44 1
F.3 d 57 2, 57 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n sh ou ld no t be gi ve n in an EPA cas e. The di st ric t co ur t in cl ud ed in co rrec t la ng ua ge 1
in it s i ns tru ct io ns

. 2

If a cas e in cl ud es cl ai m s un de r bo th Tit le VII an d th e EPA, a bu si ne ss

1 jud gm en t in st ru ct io n is ap pr op ria te

. Wo lff v. Br ow n , 12 8 F.3 d 68 2
, 68 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ).

Bau er’s ul ti m at e arg um en t on ap pe al –t ha t th e bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n

2

was a “ ro vi ng co m

m is si on ”– was no t sp eci fic al ly r a i s ed in he r ob jecti on , was no t pr es erv ed
, an d is rev ie wed fo r pl ai n erro r. In th e Mi ss ou ri co ur ts , a ro vi ng
co m m is si on oc cu rs whe n a si ng le in st ru ct io n “ as su m es a di sp ut ed fact or su bm it s an ab st ract le ga l qu es ti on th at al lo ws th e jury to ro am free ly t hr ou gh th e ev id en ce an d ch oo se an y fact s whi ch su it [ ] it s fan cy or pe rcep ti on of lo gi c to im p o s e l i a b il it y .” Sca nwel l Fr ei gh t Ex pr es s STL, In c. v. Cha n , 16 2 S.W .3d 47 7, 48 2 (Mo

. ba nc 20 05 ), ci ti ng Sei tz v. Lem ay Ba nk & Trus t Co

. , 95 9 S.W .2d 45 8, 46 3 (Mo

. ba nc 19 98 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Thi s co ur t, ho wev er, “ ne ed no t co ns id er th e in tri caci es of st at e pr oc ed ur al in st ru ct io n la w.” Cr ues v. KFC Co rp . , 76 8 F.2 d 23 0, 23 2- 33 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ), ci ti ng Cho hl

is v. Ces sn a Ai rc ra

ft Co

. , 76 0 F.2 d 90 1, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) ( em ph as is ad de d)

. As to th e ro vi ng -co m m is si on is su e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err.

-4

-Alt ho ug h th e bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n s ho ul d no t hav e be en gi ve n, th is

co ur t ex am in es “ ‘w he th er th e jury in s t r u c ti on s, ta ken as a wh ol e , fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly rep res en t th e ev id en ce an d ap pl ic ab le la w in li gh t of th e is su es pr es en te d

to th e jury in a pa rti cu la r cas e.’” McC oy , 5 9 3 F

. 3 d at 74 5- 46
, qu ot in g Br ow n , 28 4
F.3 d at 95 3 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Here, th e bu si ne ss -jud gm en t in st ru ct io n im m ed ia te ly fo ll owe d th ree in st ru ct io ns th at co rrec tl y de fin e th e pl ai nt iff ’s pr im a faci e cas e un de r th e EPA, th e te rm “ su bs ta nt ia ll y eq ua l,” t h e d e f en da nt ’s bu rd en of pe rs ua si on , an d fo ur po ss ib le affi rm at iv e de fen se s. The bu si ne s s

- ju dg m en t in st ru ct io n li m it ed th e jury from rul in g fo r Bau er so le ly fo r irr el ev an t reas on s th at are n ot in th e p rece di ng th ree in st ru ct io ns

. Tak en as a who le
, th e in st ru ct io ns co rrec tl y st at e th e la w, req ui rin g

a ve rd ic t fo r th e pl ai nt iff un de r so m e ci rcu m st an ces or fo r th e de fen da nt un de r ot he rs

. No er ro r oc cu rred

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-5

-