T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s not * pr e c e de nte xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e S a ndr a D a y O ’ C onnor , A s s oc i a t e J us t i c e of the ** S upr e m e C our t( R e t . ) , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT STEV EN BLA I R, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. T H E S C H W A N F O O D C O . , a ka S C H W A N ’S H O M E S E R V I C E , I N C ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 36016 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 0 5 7 - CSO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na C a r ol y n O s tby , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r1, 2011

M i s s oul a , M ont a na Be f o r e : O ’ CO N N O R, A s s o c i a t e J u s t i c e , REI N H A RD T a n d TH O M A S, ** C ir c u it J u d g e s . A M o n ta n a ju ry f

o u n d th a t S c h w a n ’s H o m e S e rv ic e , I n c . w r o n g f u lly di s c ha r ge d S t e ve n B l a i runde rthe M ont a na W r ongf ul D i s c ha r ge f

r om 

# FI LED

OC T 14 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSB ec ause the part i es ar e f am i l i arw i th the fa ctual and p roce du ra l 1 h is to ry o f

th is c a s e , w e d o n o t r e c o u n t a d d itio n a l f a c ts e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry to e xpl a i n the de c i s i on. 2 E m p lo y m e n t A c t ( “W D E A ” ) , M o n t. C o d e A n n . § § 3 9 - 2 - 9 0 1 , et se q . , a nd the di stri ctcourtent er ed j ud gm entfor B l ai r. S chw an’ s app ea l s the di stri ct c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f

its m o tio n f

o rd ir e c te d v e r d ic t a n d F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P roce du re 59 (e ) m ot i on for a n al t er ed or am ended j ud gm entand/ or new tr ia l. 1 T hi s C ou rtre vi ew s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a m ot i on for di re ct ed v e r d ic t de no vo . Se e O g l e s b y v . S. Pa c . Tr a n s

p . Co ., 6 F .3 d 6 0 3 , 6 0 5 ( 9 th C i r . 1993) . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a R ul e 59( e ) m ot i on f

or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se e Sc h. D is t . N o. 1J , Mul tnom ah Cnt

y . v . A C andS, I nc . , 5 F. 3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e n o w a f f i rm. U nde rthe W D E A , a di s c ha r ge i s w r ongf ul i f i t“ w a s notf

orgood c a us e a nd the e m pl oy e e ha d c om pl e t e d the e m pl oy e r ’ s pr oba t i ona ry pe r i od of em pl oym ent . ” M on t . C od e A nn . § 3 9-2-90 4(1)(b). T he W D E A further defi nes “ go od cause” as “ re as on abl e j ob -r el at ed grou nd s f or di sm i ss al base d o n a f ailu re to sa ti sf

ac to rily p er fo rm jo b d u ti es , d isru p ti o n o f th e e m p lo ye r’s op er at i on , or othe rlegi t i m ate bus i ne s s r e as on . ” Id . § 3 9 - 2 - 9 0 3 ( 5 ) ( e m p h a s is added). A “ l egi t i m at e busi ness re as on , ” i n turn, i s one thati s not“ fa l se , w h im s ic a l, a rb itr a ry o rc ap r ic io u s , a n d ... h a [ s ] s o m e lo g ic a l r e la tio n s h ip to3

the needs of the bu si ness . ” Kestel l v. H eri ta g e H

ea l th C a re C o rp . , 858 P . 2d 3 , 7 ( M o n t. 1 9 9 3 ) ; cf

. M arcyv. D el ta A i rl i nes , 16 6 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 82 (9th C i r. 1999) ( “ T hi s c our tm us ti nt e rpr e ta nd appl y M ont a na l a w a s i tbe l i e ve s the M o n ta n a S u p r e m e C o u r t w o u ld ap p ly it.” ) . S c hw a n’ s c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve di r e c t e d a v e r d ic t f o rS c h w a n ’s w ith o u t s e n d in g th e is s u e o f “g o o d c a u s e ” to th e ju ry . S chw an’ s a rgues thatB l ai r a dm i tt ed t o h i ri ng a “ l um per”

— a non -e m pl oyee pa i d i n c a s h t o he l p unl oa d a truc k— a nd thus a dm i tt e d t o e nga gi ng i n the cond uctfor w hi ch he w as t erm i nat ed. B l ai r, ho w ever , subm i tt ed evi dence tha tS c hw a n’ s de c i s i on t o t e rm i na t e hi m f orus i ng a l um pe rw a s “ a rbi tr a ry or c ap r ic io u s ,” r a th e rth a n ju s tif ie d b y g o o d c a u s e . B la irc la im e d th a t h is supervi sor had em ai l ed w ri tt en approv al of hi s use of a l um per a nd that hi r i ng l um pe r s w a s a l ongs t a ndi ng, c om m on, a nd c ondone d pr a c t i c e a m ong S c hw a n’ s e m pl oy e e s . E vi de nc e e xi s t e d tha t , w he n c ons true d i n the l i ght m o st fa v o ra b le to B lair, co u ldlead a r atio n al ju ry to b eliev e th at S ch w an ’s a c te d a rb itr a r ily in te rm in a tin g B la ir . Se e J o h n s o n v . C o s tc o W

h o le s a le , 152 P . 3d 72 7, 73 4 (M on t . 20 07 ) ( ye ar s of r epea t ed vi ol at i on s a nd evi dence that other e m pl oyee s vi ol at ed the po l i cy“ m ayl ea d a j ury t o b el i eve thatC ost co d id n o t h a v e g o o d c a u s e to d is c h a r g e J o h n s o n b e c a u s e it ap p lie d its em pl oym entpo l i cyi n an arbi tra ryand capri ci ou s m anner”) . B ec ause a4

di r e c t e d ve r di c ti s onl y “ pr ope rw he n the e vi de nc e pe rm i t s onl y one re as o n ab le co n clu sio n ,” th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin d en yin g S ch w an ’s m o tio n a n d s u b m ittin g th e is s u e to th e ju ry f o rits u ltim a te r e s o lu tio n . A m a r e l v . C o n n e ll , 10 2 F . 3d 14 94 , 15 17 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). S c hw a n’ s f

ur the rc ont e nds tha t , onc e the j ury de l i ve r e d i t s ve r di c tf or B l a i r , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve gr a nt e d S c hw a n’ s R ul e 59( e ) m ot i on f or a n a l t e r e d ora m e nde d j udgm e nta nd/ orne w tr i a l . A R ul e 59( e ) m ot i on, h o w ev er, “ sh o u l d n o tb e g ran t ed , ab sen th i g h l y u n u su al ci rcu m st an ces, un l es s the di stri ctcourti s pre se nt ed w i th n ew l y di sc ov er ed evi dence, c om m i tt e d c l e a re rr or , ori f the r e i s a n i nt e rve ni ng c ha nge i n the c ontr ol l i ng l aw . ” 3 8 9 O r a n g e S tr e e t P a r tn e rs v . A r n o ld , 17 9 F . 3d 65 6, 66 5 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). In denyi ng the m ot i on , the di stri ctcourtagai n rea soned thatthere w a s e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d tha t , w hi l e c ont e s t e d by S c hw a n’ s , s uppor t e d the j ury’ s ver di ctthat , un der the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, S chw an’ s l ac ked go od cause f

or t erm i nat i ng B l ai r. F or exam pl e, B l ai r’ s s up ervi sor, O l i ver C ornett , t es t i fi ed thathe had em ai l ed B l ai r i nstruct i on s t o k ee p an i nd i vi du al nam ed M attH al st ea d “ l um pi ng un t i l w e gethi m throu gh the sy st em . ” S c h w a n ’s H u m a n R e s o u r c e s M a n a g e rf o rth e r e g io n , R o g e rE v e r t, a c know l e dge d tha tthe r e ha d be e n i nc i de nt s of l um pi ng w i thi n the c om pa ny i n the pa s t . B l a i rhi m s e l f t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d l e a rne d the pr a c t i c e of hi r i ng5

l um pers i n 2 00 1 from a S chw an’ s f ac i l i ty s up ervi sor i n B el grade, M on t ana, w h o p a id lu m p e r s $ 3 5 o r$ 4 0 c a s h to u n lo a d tru c k s o n n u m e r o u s o c c a s io n s . B l ai r fu rth er rep o rt ed th ata m at eri al h an d l er atth e d ep o ti n B i l l i n g s, M ont a na , t a ughthi m how t o pa y a l um pe ra nd a c c ountf orthe c a s h pa y m e nt on S c hw a n’ s ha nd- he l d c om put e rs y s t e m . I n l i ghtof tha te vi de nc e , the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed no abuse of di sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng thatthere had be e n no “ c l e a re rr or ” orm a ni f e s ti nj us t i c e i n the pr oc e e di ngs w a rr a nt i ng R u le 5 9 ( e ) ’s e x tr a o r d in a ry r e lie f . W e the r e f

or e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of S c hw a n’ s m ot i on f

or di r e c t e d ve r di c ta nd R ul e 59( e ) m ot i on f ora n a l t e r e d ora m e nde d j udgm e nt a n d /o rn e w tr ia l. AF F I RME D.