N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T GAR

DNER , Plaintiff-Appe lla n t,
v. FEDER AL EXPRESS C ORPOR ATION, De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-15891 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01082-TEH
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia T he lton E. He nde rson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 7, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : LUC E R O, *** R

AW LINSON, a

nd OW E NS, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED DEC 13 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble C a rlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc u it Judgefor the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by

de signa tion.R obe rt Ga rdne r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m o tion for a ne w tria l and m otion to strike

c osts in his ac tion a ga inst Fe de ra l Expre ss C o rporation (“ Fe dEx” ). Exe rc ising jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to deny a m otion for a

ne wtria l for
a buse o f disc re tion. Unite d State s v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba

nc ). Sim ila

rly , we re vie w a

n award of c o sts for a

buse of disc re tion

“ an d will ove rturn the award ‘ if it is ba s e d on a n e rrone ous de t e rm i nation of la w.’ ” M artin v. C a l. De p’ t of Ve te rans Affa irs, 560 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Lussie

r v. Dolla r Tre e Store s, Inc ., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th C i r. 2008)). Gardne r argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in giving the jury the “ Lim ita

tion on R e m e d ie s - Sam e De c ision” instruc tion. “ An e rror in instruc t ing the jury in a
c ivil c a se re quire s re ve rsa l unle ss the e rror is m ore proba bly tha n not ha rm l e ss.” Gantt v. C ity

of L.A., 717 F.3d 702, 707 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting C le m v. Lom e li, 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th C ir. 2009)). W e do not a ddre s s whe the r this instruc tion
wa s le g a l ly

e rrone ous, a s we c onc lude any e rror wa s ha

rm le s s. On Ga rdne r’ s sixth c la i m , wrongful disc ha rge in viola

tion of publicpolic y , the j ury answe re d “ n o ” to the que stion of whe the r Gardne r’ s disa bility or m e dic a l le ave wa s a

substa ntia l m otiva

ting re a s on for his disc ha

rge . W e thus de te rm ine that , ha d the jury

not be e n give n the “ L im ita tion on Re m e die s - Sam e De c ision” 2instruc tion, it ne ve rthe l e ss would ha ve found in fa

vor of de fe nda

nt. Se e Unite d Stat e s v. Ale xa

nde r, 695 F.2d 398, 401-02 (9th C ir. 1982) (“ find[ing] it
unne c e ssa

ry to de c ide ” whe the r an instruc tion wa s e rrone ous be c a u se the jury ’ s finding on a

diffe re nt issuede m onstra te d tha t e v e n without the

a lle ge d e rror, the jury would ha ve re a c he d the sa

m e re sult). W e a lso re

je c t Ga rdne r’ s argum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in re fusing to give the jury his propose d instruc tion re ga rding re a sona

ble a c c om

m odation. Gardne r insists tha

t e vide nc e a t

tria l e sta blishe d tha

t he c ould ha

ve be e n re a sona

bly
a c c om m odate d if Fe dEx ha d give n him a thre e -m onth e xte nsion of job-prote c te d le ave . B ut, a s de fe nda

n t note s, a fte r Gardne r’ s nine ty -day pe riod of job-prote c te d le ave e nde d , it wa s de te rm ine d tha t the re we re no full-tim e ram p tra n sport drive r positions a

va ila ble at the Fe d Ex fa c ility

at whic h he wa s e m

ploy e d. Unde r C a lifornia ’ s Fa ir Em

p l oym e nt a

nd Housing Ac t (“ FEHA” ), Fe dEx wa s not
re quire d to c re a te a ne wposition for Ga rdne r in the a

bse nc e of a

ny va c ant a

nd
c om pa ra ble positions. Se e W a t

kins v. Am e ripride Se rvs., 375 F.3d 821, 828 (9th C ir. 2004) (noting tha

t unde r FEHA, a

n e m ploy e r is “ only

obliga te d to re a s sign” a disa ble d e m ploy e e “ t o a

nothe r position within the c om pa ny if the re we re an
e xisting, va c a

nt position for whic

h [the e m ploy e e ] wa s qua lifie d” (e m pha sis
om i tte d)). 3Additiona lly , Ga rdne r a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in giving the jury the “ R e lia nc e on M e dic a l Opinions” instruc tion. In support, he obse rve s tha

t the instruc tion did not a

dditiona lly

c la rify tha t a n e m ploy e r c annot re ly

sole ly on
m e dic a l opinions to m

e e t its obliga

tions to c ra ft a

re a sona ble a c c om

m odation, be c a use the e m

ploy e r m ust a l so e nga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss. B ut the instruc tion did not sta

te tha t Fe dEx wa s e ntitle d to re ly only on m e dic a l opinions
and, a s Ga

rdne r’ s c ounse l a dm itte d at tria l, the instruc tion c orre c tly sta te d tha t Fe dEx wa s e ntitle d to c onside r m e dic a l opinions. W e hold tha t the re e xiste d “ a suffic i e nt e vide ntia

ry founda tion to support giving th[is] instruc t ion” and the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in doing so. Ya n Fang Du v. Allsta

te Ins. C o., 697 F.3d 753, 757 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita tion omitte d). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Ga

rdne r’ s m otion for a n e w tria l. Although Ga rdne r is c orre c t tha

t the jury e rre d in a

nswe ring “ no” to the que stion of whe the r Fe dEx subje c te d Ga rdne r to a n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt
a c tion with re spe c t to his disa bility -disc rim ination a

nd re ta lia tion c la im s, we a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha

t the s e e rrors on the jury ’ s ve rdic t form c an be re c onc ile d with a nothe r finding. B e c a

use the jury answe re d “ no” on the “ substa ntia l
m otiva t ing re a son” que stion on the wrongful disc ha rge c la im , we c onc lude tha t the jury would ha ve like wise answe re d “ no” on the disa bility -disc rim ination a

nd 4re ta lia

tion c la im s, c onsiste nt with its finding of no lia bility . Se e Ga llic k v. B a lt. & Ohio R
. R . C o., 372 U.S. 108, 119 (1963) (“ W he re the re is a vie w of the c a se tha t
m ake s the jury ’ s a

nswe rs to spe c ia l inte rrogatorie s c o nsiste nt, the y m ust be
re solve d tha

t wa y .” (quoting Atl. &

Gulf Ste ve dore s, Inc
. v. Elle rm an Line s, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355, 364 (1962))). Fina lly , Ga

rdne r argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing fe de ra l la

w,
ra the r tha n sta te la w, in de c i ding to a

ward c osts to Fe dEx. B ut this a rgum e nt is fore c lose d by

C h a m pion Produc e , Inc . v. R

uby R obinson C o., in whic h we he ld that “ [a ] n a ward of sta

nda rd c osts in fe de ra l distric t c ourt is norm a lly gove rne d by Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 54(d), e ve n in dive rsity c a se s.” 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th C ir. 2003) (c ita tion omitte d). As the distric t c ourt he ld be low, none of the e xc e ptions to this ge

ne ra l rule a

pply in this c a se . AFFIRM E D
.

5