N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B EVERLY ANETTE R

AINES, Princ ipa l, B righton Sc hool, Plaintiff, And C HALIC E STALLW OR TH, Ele m e nta ry Sc hool Te a c he r, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. SEATTLE SC HOOL DISTRIC T NO 1, a m unic ipa l c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35304 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-00203-TSZ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Thom a s S. Zilly , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 4, 2015 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : NOONAN, HAWK INS, and GOULD, C irc u i t Judge s. 

# FIL ED SEP 10 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C ha lic e Sta llworth a ppe a ls a jury ve rdic t in fa

vor of de fe n da

nt Se a ttle Sc hool Distric t No. 1 (the Distric t). She ra i se s se ve ra l c la im s of e rror, but we
a ffirm
. M s. Sta llworth first a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by try ing he r c a se jointly with tha t of c o-pla i ntiff Audre y

W e a v e r. In a July 1, 2011, orde r, the distric t c o urt a ske d the pla intiffs to de t e rm ine whe the r the y “ s hould be divide d into two groups a s outline d in [a n e a rlie r orde r] or in som e othe r fa shion.” M s. Sta l lworth’ s July

18, 2011, re sponse sugge ste d tha t “ [f] or the purpose of tria l a nd dispositive

m otions,”she “ would liketo be groupe d” with M s. W e ave r. The c ourt
c om plie d with this re que st. M s. Sta llworth c la im s on a ppe a l tha t the distric t

c ourt
e rre d in doing so. B ut be c a u s e she “ both invite d the e rror, and re linquishe d a known right” by

a ba ndoning a prior m otion to se ve r an d a sking thec ourt to group he r c a se with M s. W e ave r’ s for tria l, a ny “ e rror is wa ive d a

nd the re fore
unre vie wa

ble ” on a ppe a l. Unite d State

s v . Pe r e z , 116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba

nc ). M s. Sta llworth ne xt a

rgue s tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d by

a llowing the Distric t to re fe r to he r “ dishone sty ” in its opening sta te m e nt a nd c l osing a

rgum e nt to the jury . A ne w tria l is a p p ropriate whe n attorne y

m isc o nduc t “ suffic ie ntly pe rm e a t [e d] [the ] e n tire proc e e d ing to provide c onvic tion tha

t the jury wa s 2influe n c e d by pa ssion a nd pre judic e in re a c h ing its ve rdic t.” Se ttle goodev . Portland Pub. Sch. , 371 F.3d 503, 516–17 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting K e hr v . Smith Barne y , 736 F.2d 1283, 1286 (9th C ir. 1984)). “ The re is a n e ve n ‘ high[e r] thre shold’ for granting a

ne w tria l whe re , a s he re , [a ppe lla nt] fa ile d to obje c t to the
a lle ge d m isc onduc t during trial .” Id. at 517 (quoting K aise r Ste e l C

o rp. v . Frank C oluc c io C onstr. C o . , 785 F.2d 656, 658 (9th C ir. 1986)). The re wa s no e rror. The Distric t’ s de fe nse at tria l wa s tha t it did not ne e d to provide M s. Sta llworth with thea c c om

m odation shere que ste d be c a use she inte rne d with a

nothe r sc hool distric t while on unpa id le a v e in 2007–08, which

de m onstra

te d tha t he r injurie s we re not a s se rious a s she sugge ste d a nd justifie d te rm inating he r c ontra c t for 2008–09. The

Distric t’ s sta

te m e nts a bout M s. Sta llworth’ s dishone sty re ga rding he r ne e d for a

n a c c om m odat i on we re at the he art of its the ory of the c a se and we re not im p rope r. Ne xt, M s. Sta llworth a

rgue s tha t the distric t

c o urt e rre d by

lim iting the pla i ntiffs’ tria l pre se ntation to fifte e n hours sha re d be twe e n he r and M s. W e ave r. B e c a use M s. Sta llworth did not obje c t at tria l to thedistric t c ourt’ s tim e lim ita tion, she m ust show a

n obvious e rror that a ffe c te d he r funda m e nta l rights a

nd “ re a c h[e d] the p inna c le of fa

ult” e nvisione d by

the pla i n e rror sta

nda rd. C .B. v . C ity of Sonora , 769 F.3d 1005, 1018 (9th C i r. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (quoting He m mings v
. 3Tidy man’s Inc
. , 285 F.3d 1174, 1193 (9th C ir. 2002)). M s. Sta llworth ha s not

ide n tifie d a

ny spe c ific witne ss she c ould not c a ll, c ruc ia l te stim ony she c ould not pre s e nt, or e xhibit she

c o uld not show, nor doe s she e xpla in how shewa s pre j udic e d by

the tim e lim ita

t ion. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla in e rror. M s. Sta llworth a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by inc l uding a
se nte nc e in Jury Instruc tion No. 14B tha t re late d sole ly

to M s. W e ave r’ s c la im

and sta te d tha t the Distric t did not ha

ve a duty to providehe r with a

ne w supe rvisor. She re late dly

c la im s tha

t the c ourt e rre d by

not providing “ furthe r instruc t ion a bout the d uty to a ffirm a tive ly

a ssist in finding a

lte rnative jobs a

n d re a ssigning disa

ble d individuals,” and tha

t the c ourt should ha

v e instruc te d the jury

tha t sc hool distric ts

“ do ha v e a duty to tra

nsfe r disa ble d te a c he rs to positions for whic h the y qua lify in
and/or out of c e rtific a te d e m ploy m e nt.” M s. Sta llworth did not obje c t to this instruc tion a

t tria l , howe ve r, so we re vie w for pla in e rror. C .B. , 769 F.3d a

t 1018. W e c onc l ude tha

t the jury instruc tion a de quate ly

c a pture d W a shington sta

te la w by sta ting: “ An e m

ploy e r m ust providea

re a sona ble a c c om

m odation for a

n e m ploy e e with a n im pa i rm e n t unle ss the e m

ploy e r c an show tha

t the a c c om

m odation would im pose an undue ha rdship on the

e m ploy e r” and by

providing e x am

ple s of a n
a c c e pta b le re a sona

ble a c c om

m odation unde r the W a shington La w Aga inst

4Disc rim i nation. Thedistric t c o urt did not pla

inly e rr by

om itting the

m ore spe c ific instruc tion tha

t M s. Sta llworth now re que sts on a ppe a l. Fina lly , M s. Sta l lworth a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by
re fusing to instruc t the jury a bout them e aning of “ e m

ploy m e nt c o ntra c t” unde r W a shington sta

te la w to supple m e nt a

n instruc tion tha

t im plie d tha t M s . Sta llworth
wa s not e ntitle d to a

re a sona ble a c c om

m odation if sheha d signe d e m ploy m e nt
c ontra c ts with two school distric ts for the sa m e te rm . The distric t

c o urt de nie d the
re que s t be c a

use it wa s “ n ot a

ware of a ny suc h patte rn instruc t ion” for the te rm

“ e m ploy m e nt c ontra c t” and it would not “ give it unle ss the re is suc h a patte rn instruc tion.” M s. Sta llworth did not obje c t furthe r, nor did she

propose an instruc tion de fining the se te rm s. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by de ny ing the instruc tion be c a use of M s . Sta llworth’ s la c k of spe c i fic ity
. S e e Unite d State s v . Flore s -Solis , 433 F.2d 945, 946 (9th C ir. 1970) (pe r c uriam ). Nor a re the words “ e m

p loy m e nt c ontra c t” c onfusing or te c hnic a l suc h that the jury re quire d furthe r guida

nc e to inte rpre t the instruc t ion. Se e Unite d State s v . Sarno , 73 F.3d 1470, 1485 (9th C ir. 1995). AFFIRM E D
.

5