Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60075
J IM M YF O R D , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. D IV E R S IF IE D T E C H N O L O G Y , IN C ., D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

N o. 3: 99- C V

- 435

B ef ore K IN G , JO L L Y , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Af t e rr e vi e w i ng t he t r i alre c o r d, w e co nc l ude t hatt he j ur y hads uf f i c i e nt evi denc e t o s upporti t s ve rd i ct and i t s aw ar d of c om pensa t or y and puni t i ve da m ages. The de t e r m i nat i ve q ue s t i o n pr e s e nt e d i n t hi s ap pe al i s s t r ai ght f o r w ar d —
w het hert he e vi denc e s upport s t he ve r di c tof t he j ury. T h ere w as su bstanti alev i den ce that M r. F ord w as a l on g- t i m e em pl oyee w h o ha d received overw h el m i n g ly posi t i ve evaluati on s t h rough ou thi s enti re United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 18, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60075 Document: 00511056071 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 60075

The defe ndantarguesfor thef irs t tim e on appe al thatthiswasnot pro tec tedactivity, 1 butin sofar as th e di strict court mayh ave erred, the errorwas pl ainlynot pl ain
. 2 c ar e e rw i t h t he de fe nda nt
. H i s l e ve lo f pe r f o r m anc e ea rned hi m r o ut i ne a nd heal t hy bonuse s. Bu tt hen one day i n hi s f i f t ee nt h year of em pl oym ent , he w as in v o lv e d in a n E E O C in v e s tig a tio n t h a t d is p le a s e d h is b o s s a n d , a c c o r d in gto h is t est i m on y, he w as verbal l y berated a n d im m edi atel y pu n i shed w i t h l oss of prest i ge an d respon sibi l i t y. A f t er he f i l ed hi s ow n E E O C cha rge, h e w as den i ed h i s r ou t i n e bon u s — t h e onl y em pl oyee n otto recei ve on e — a n d w as f i red w h en th e litig a tio n co m m e n c e d
. N ow , t h e defen da n tasser t ed i t s r eason s f or host i l i t y show n againstM r. For d, unr e l at e d t o the E E O C i nve s t i ga t i o n, a nd a r gue s t hatund e rt he ci rcum st an ces, M r. F ord’ s pa rt i ci pa t i on i n t h e i n vest i gati on w as not prot ect ed act i vi t y u n der T i t l e V II
. B u tt h e ci rcum st an ces can be l ooked at i n t w o ( or m ore) d i ff ere n t w a ys , i n cl u d i n g th e v i ew t h a t M r . F ord w a s p u n i sh ed f or fail i n g to i m ped e t h e investi gati on b y kic king t h e E E O C a gen tout of t h e room , as hi s boss

1 sug gest ed. M oreover, i f t h e j u ry chose, t h e t i m i n g of t h e adv erse consequ en ces t o M r . Fo r d i n t hi s c as e c o ul d b e seen as es pe c i al l y t e l l i ng o f t r ut h a nd o f

t he
a c t u a lmo t i v e s fo ra n i mu s t o wa r d h i m, b o t h i n c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e E EO C i n vest i gati on an d the E E O C charge, as w el las t o t h e am en ded charge. N ow , t he def

endantar gued t o t he j ury and t o us t hatt he m ot i ve f ordeni al
o f b o n u s e s , th e h o s tile a tt itu d e a n d t h e u ltim a te d is c h a r g e w a s o n lyp e r s o n a l — noti l l egal— be c ause t he new bo ss (w h o h ad be en ar ound a l ong t i m e) had al w ays been possess ed of a l ow opi n i o n o f M r. F o rd an d w as out t o gethi m f or no n- i l l e ga lr e as o ns . Tha ta r gum e nti nde e d i s sup po r t e d byso m e e vi de nc e a nd
eve n by adm i ss i ons of M r . For d. Bu ti n t he f i nalc al l— be c ause of s ubst ant i al
e vi de nc e o n b o t h s i de s — i tw as up t o t he j ur y, and t o t he j ur y al o ne , t o de c i de
w h a t fa c to ro rfa c to r s m o tiv a te d th e d is c r i m i n a t i o n a g a in s t M r . F o r d
. A n d in Case: 09-60075 Document: 00511056071 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 60075

Wefeel c ompell ed toob serve t ha t , f orn o r easonth at is in the recor d, nor forany 2 reaso n offeredbyth e di strict court in respon se toth e mandamu s finally file d byMr. Ford, the district co urt sat o n the verdict for six and oneh alf ye ar s b ef or e ite ntered j udgment. It i s truly regrettableth at the plaintiff ha s been deni ed his just recovery for theseseveral years by the lack of j udicialdiligence . In d eed, it was only after a mandamu s petitionh ad b eenfil ed thatthe dis tri ct co urttookany action. This is notthe fir sttimesuch ine xcus able de lays have occurred in that co urt. Weurgeth e court to b e more responsive and respon sibl e to its duti es and to the liti gants. We onceagain enco ura geth e di strict court toask for a ssistanc e whe n it isun ab leto ti me lyf

ulf ill it s j u dici al ob li gation s.

3 m aki ng t he c al l , t he j ury r ej ec t ed t he def endant ’ s ac c ountof

the r eas ons forw hat hap pe ne d. T h e sam e is true f

or p u n i t i ve da m ages
— the d i spu t ed evi den ce, i t s nature and char ac t er i st i c s, w as f ort he j ury t o s or tout
. O ne s upport abl e view o f t hat
e v i d e n c e i s t h a td e fe n d a n t ’ s c o n d u c t , e s p e c i a l l ywh e n t i m e d wi t h t h e E EO C i n vest i gati on an d h i s E E O C ch arge, w as kn ow i n g, w i l l f u l , an d even evi n ci n g of
m al i ce, w h en w ei gh ed agai n st t h e l on g, l oyal an d u n bl em i shed ser vi ce t h at M r. F o r d cla im e d , n o tw ith s ta n d in gth a t t h e r e w a s a ls o s o m e e v id e n c e o f c h a r ita b le
a t t it u d e s , e x p r e s s e d a p o lo g ie s a n d g e n e r o u s s e v e r a n c e p a y . T h e d e fe n d a n t ’s
e v id e n c e co u ld h a v e p e r s u a d e d th e ju r yt o a c c e p t th e d e fe n d a n t’s s id e , b u t itd id
no t ; t he j ur y s i de d wi t h M r . Fo r d. The f i nalw o r d i s t hatt hi s a ppe alw as pur e l y, t o t al l y anda l w ay s a j u ry c as e . The j ur y de c i de d a nd we AF FI RM
. The m and at e s hal li s s ue f o r t hw i t h. 2 A F F I R MED ; MA ND A T E I S S UE D F OR T HWI T H. Case: 09-60075 Document: 00511056071 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2010