FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 4, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 10 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 06 26 -RWS CANDACE TERRELL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us OTS, INC., d.b .a. Om ni te ch So lu ti on s, d.b .a. Om ni te ch Ins ti tu te , CHARLTON CARLOS LESTER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 4, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

OTS, Inc ., a for -p ro fiteduc at io n c or po rat io n, an d i ts CEO andso le sh areh ol de r, Ch arl to n C arl os Lest er, ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt's de ni al of the ir
m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law an d fo r a n ew tr ia l af te r a jury verd ic t i n fav orof C an da ce Terr el l o n h er cl ai m s fo r ba tt ery ag ai ns t Les te r an d n eg li ge nt ret en ti on an d s up erv is io n a ga in stOTS. Terrel l b eg anwork in g fo r OTS as anoff ic e m an ag er i n M arch , 20 07 , and Lest er was he r di rectsupe rv is or . Notlo ng aft er Terr el l s ta rte d wo rk in g a t OTS, Lest er b eg anm ak in g a dv an ces , in cl ud in g h ug gi ng he r, rubb in g h er s ho ul de rs an d arm s, at te m

pt in g t o k is s h er, an d m ak in g s ex ua l co m m en ts to he r. Terrel l re si st ed , an d Les te r be cam e cri ti cal of h er job pe rfo rm an ce. In May, 20 07 , Lest er m ov ed Terrel l t o adi ffer en t d ep art m en t o f OTS, wher e sh e was supe rv is edby Rene e Als to n, an ot he r OTS em

pl oyee. Afterth e tr an sf

er, Terrr el l was term in at ed . Terrel l t he n s ue d Les te r fo r as saul t an d b at te ry un de r Geo rg ialaw, an d s ue d OTS forsex ua l h aras sm en t an d re ta li at io n u nd er Tit le VII of th e fed eral Civ il Ri gh ts Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § § 2 00 0e -2 an d 2 00 0e -3 , andfor ne gl ig en tl y

supe rv is in g an d re ta in in g Les te r. Terrel l's cas e wen t t o t ria l o n h er s ta te -la w cla im s o nl y . 1 The district cour

t gr anted a

direc ted ver dict on Terr ell’s Title VI Iclaims on the ground 1 that OTS has fe wer

than 15 employees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Te rre ll does not appea l the dismiss al of he r Title VI Iclaims. 2Fi ve ot he r OTS em pl oyees t es ti fie d t o b ei ng sex ua ll y ha ras se d d ire ct ly by

Lest er. The jury ru le d i n Terrel l's fav oran d a ward ed$1 00 ,00 0 a ga in stLest er o n Terrel l's ba tt ery cl ai m , and$2 00 ,00 0 a ga in stOTS forne gl ig en tl y supe rv is in g a ndret ai ni ng Lest er as it s emplo y ee. The di stric t co urt d en ie d Les te r’s m ot io ns fora ne w tri al an d fo r jud gm en t as a m atte r of law. On ap pe al , OTS argu es th atitcan no t b e h el d l iabl e fo r ne gl ig en tl y supe rv is in g a ndret ai ni ng Lest er b ecau se , as OTS’s CEO an d s ol e sh areh ol de r, Lest er co ul d b e supe rv is edan d re ta in edon ly by hi m se lf. Ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t Les te r, act in g a s C EO andso le sh areh ol de r of OTS, cou ldha ve sh ie ld edOTS fro m

li ab il it y by repl aci ng hi m se lf wi th anou ts id e m an ag er o nc e h e ha d n ot ic e o f un wan te d a dv an ces ag ai ns t OTS’s fem al e em pl oyees. Th e d is tri ct co urt re as on edth atLest er’s fai lu re t o d o s o c on st itut eda fai lu re b y OTS as a co rp or at e en ti ty tha t was pu ni sh ab le as asep arat e to rt f ro m Lest er’s u nd erl y in g to rt o f ba tt eri ng Terrel l. We fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s de te rm in at io n. OTS als o c la im s tha t t he ev id en ce attri al was i ns uf fic ie ntto pro ve th atit ha d n ot ic e o f Les te r’s pr op en si ty to b atte r OTS’s fem al e em pl oyees. Ho wev er, as no te d, fi ve form er OTS em pl oyees, i n a dd it io n t o Terrel l, p ro vi de d t es ti m on y of

3ph y si cal an d v erb al ha ras sm en t b y Lest er. Thei r te st im on y de m on st rat edLest er’s 2
aware ne ss th atth is co nduc t co ul d g iv e ri se to laws ui ts ag ai ns t h im . Ind eed , a si xt h wit ne ss , who ha d b een em pl oyed atOTS as a c on ta ctpe rs on forsex ua l h aras sm en t al le ga ti on s, t es ti fie d t ha t s he sp eci fic al ly adv is edLest er n otto all ow h im se lf t o rem ai n i n aroo m

be hi ndclo se d d oo rs wit h afem al e em pl oyee in ord er t o p ro te ct OTS fro m

li ab il it y . This tes ti m on y pro vi de d a n a m

pl e ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e jury’ s co nc lu si on reg ard in g OTS. OTS andLest er al so co nt en d t ha t t he jury ve rd ic ts ag ai ns t t he m m us t b e rev ers edbe cau se th e d is tri ctco urt erredin adm it ti ng tes ti m on y by sev eral wit ne ss es th atOTS andLest er cl ai m was p erju redtes ti m on y . In s up po rt o f th is arg um en t, OTS an d Les te r si m pl y po in t t o i nc on si st en ci es in th e wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y . Howev er, OTS an d Les te r ex te ns iv el y cro ss -ex am in edeach of t he se wit ne ss es at t ria l, an d t he jury was en ti tl edto reac h i ts own de te rm in at io n a s t o t he tru th of the wit ne ss es ’ st at em en ts . W e fi ndno m eri t t o t hi s ar gu m en t. See Cry st al Ent m ’t & Fil m

works , Inc . v. J ur ad o, 6 43 F.3d13 13 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ [T]his co urt wi ll no t o rd in ari ly revi ew th e fac tfi nd er’s d et erm in at io n o f

OTS and L ester c halleng e the district cour t’s admission of testimony by other fe male 2 employees r eg ardinginstances of sexual harassment by

L ester. H oweve r, this argument was not raised in a

n initial brief; there fore , we do not addr ess it. See Tallaha ssee Me m’l Reg ’l Med. Ctr. v. Bow en, 815 F .2d 1435, 1446 n.16 (11th Cir. 1987) (“ [A] party cannot a rgue an issue in its reply brief that was not prese rved in its initial brief.”) . 4cred ib il it y .”).

AFFIRMED

5