FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OC TO B ER 6 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15736

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 1 4 2 4 - C V- T - 2 6 - MAP C Y N T H I A H A M P T O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F S T . P E T E R S B U R G , F L O R I D A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t obe r6, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P l ai nt i ff -app el l ant , C ynthi a H am pt on appeal s, throu gh coun se l , the di stri ct c our t ’ s j udgm e nte nt e r i ng a j ury ve r di c ti n f a vorof the D e f e nda nt - appe l l e e , C i ty of2

S t . P e t e r s bur g ( “ C i ty ” ) . H a m pt on ha d f i l e d a tw o- c ountc om pl a i nta l l e gi ng r e lig io u s d is c r im in a tio n a n d r e ta lia to ry d is c h a r g e u n d e rT itle V I I o f th e C iv il R i ght s A c tof

1964. T he j ury f

ound tha tthe C i ty ’ s de m a nd tha ts he s i gn a pa t i e nt consentform had con fl i ct ed w i th h erre l i gi ou s bel i ef s. N everthel es s, the j ury concl ud ed thatthe C i ty had re as on abl y a cc om m od at ed H am pt on ’ s r el i gi on and that H am p t o n ’ s rel i g i o u s o b j ect i o n s w ere n o ta m o t i v at i n g fact o r i n th e C i ty’ s ad v erse e m p l o y m e n ta c t i o n s a g a i n s th e r . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D F or tw enty y ea rs , H am pt on had w orked as a n em er gency c om pl ai ntw ri t er i n the C i ty of

S t . P e t e r s bur g’ s pol i c e de pa r tm e nt . D ur i ng he rl a s ty e a rw i th the C i ty , H a m pt on ha d r e pe a t e dl y c a l l e d i n s i c k w i th a m i gr a i ne . I n A ugus t2002, c o n c e rn e d th a t H a m p to n w a s ab u s in g h e rs ic k le a v e , th e C ity o r d e r e d h e rto s u b m it t o a m e di c a l e xa m unde rthe F a m i l y a nd M e di c a l L e a ve A c t . S e e 29 U . S . C . § 2601 e ts e q. I n s o doi ng, the C i ty r e qui r e d H a m pt on t o s i gn a m e di c a l a uthor i z a t i on f o rm . C itin g c o n c e rn s ab o u t r e c e iv in g b lo o d tr a n s f u s io n s , H a m p to n r e p e a te d ly obj e c t e d t o s i gni ng the f orm on the gr ound tha ti tc onf l i c t e d w i th he rr e l i gi ous bel i ef s. P ri or t o l ea vi ng on a tw o-w ee k v ac at i on , H am pt on m etw i th h er s upe rvi s or s w ho i nf

orm e d he rtha ti f

s he di d nots i gn the f

or m , s he w oul d be c o n s id e r e d in s u b o r d in a te . A t th a t m e e tin g , H a m p to n a lle g e d ly u s e d p r o f a n ity3

to w a r d s th e s u p e rv is o r s . A ft erchar gi ng her w i th i nsub ordi nat i on , the C i ty l aunched an Inte rnal A f f a i r s i nve s t i ga t i on. D ur i ng the i nve s t i ga t i on, H a m pt on de ni e d us i ng f oul l angu age a nd re i t er at ed her r el i gi ou s obj ec t i on t o si gn i ng the form . O n 1 4 O ct ob er 2 0 0 2 , th e Ci ty f

i r e d H a mp t o n f

o ri n s u b o r d i n a t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o s i g n th e f

o rm, us i ng pr of

a ni ty i n the w orkpl a c e , a nd l y i ng aboutthe pr of a ni ty dur i ng the i nve s t i ga t i on. O n 8 J ul y 2003, H a m pt on f i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tthe C i ty . D ur i ng j ury s e l e c t i on, the c our tde ni e d H a m pt on’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke tw o j ur or s f orc a us e , a nd s truc k a prospect i ve j uror for cause over her obj ec t i on . D uri ng op eni ng ar gu m ent , the court ha d a l l ow e d the C i ty t o di s pl a y a n e xhi bi ttha ts how e d H a m pt on’ s s i c k l e a ve . T he courtl at erconcl ud ed thatce rt ai n evi dence of H am pt on ’ s s i ck l ea ve w as prej ud i ci al un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 403 because i tw ou l d l ea d t o an i m prop er i nfer ence thatH am pt on w as a m al i ng er er . A s s uch, the courtre peat edl y s ust ai ned obj ec t i on s t o the vari ou s quest i on s by the C i ty r el at i ng t o thati ss ue. T he court a ls o r e f u s e d to a llo w H a m p to n to r e a d p le a d in g a d m is s io n s to th e ju ry o n th e b a s is tha tj ur or s a r e notf

a m i l i a rw i th the nua nc e s of c om pl a i nt s , a ns w e r s , a nd a f f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e s a nd s uc h a dm i s s i ons w oul d ha ve a t e nde nc y t o c onf us e the is s u e s .4

A ft erthe C i ty had re st ed i t s c as e, the courtdeni ed H am pt on ’ s r equestt o rea d a que s t i on a nd a ns w e rf r om a w i tne s s ’ s de pos i t i on i n r e butt a l . A f t e ra s ki ng H am pt on w hether thi s w as brou gh tup on cr oss- exam i nat i on , the courtconcl ud ed tha ts uc h a r e que s tw a s notr e butt a l . B e f or e s e ndi ng the j ury t o de l i be r a t e , the courtdel i vere d i t s j ury i nstruct i on s. T he i nstruct i on s s etforth the tw o cl ai m s that H am pt on brou gh tagai nstthe C i ty, re l i gi ou s di sc ri m i nat i on and ret al i at ory d i sch arg e, an d th e C i ty’ s resp o n se t o each . In rel ev an tp art , th e i n stru ct i o n s al so s t a t e d: F o ra n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n to b e “c a u s a lly r e la te d ” to s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi t i e s , i tm us tbe s how n tha t , butf orthe pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty , the a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on w oul d notha ve occurre d. O r s t at ed another w ay , i tm ustbe show n thatthe prot ec t ed a c t i vi ty by the P l a i nt i f

f w a s a s ubs t a nt i a l , m ot i va t i ng c a us e tha tm a de a d if f e r e n c e in th e D e f

e n d a n t’s d e c is io n . R 3 - 5 8 a t 1 7 . O n th e ju ry f o rm , th e r e le v a n t q u e s tio n s in c lu d e d : ( 1 ) “D id C y n th ia H am pt on prov e thatshe w as di sc harged or otherw i se penal i ze d d ue t o a confl i ct be tw e e n he rr e l i gi on a nd the c i ty ’ s or de rt o s i gn the m e di c a l c ons e ntf orm ? ” ; ( 2) D i d the ci ty prove thati tre as on abl y a cc om m od at ed C ynthi a H am pt on ’ s r el i gi on ? ”; and (3) “ D i d C ynthi a H am pt on prov e thather r el i gi ou s obj ec t i on s w er e a m ot i vat i ng fa ct or i n the ci ty’ s a dv er se em pl oym entac t i on s? ” R 3-61 at1. T he j ury a ns w e r e d “ Y e s ” t o que s t i ons ( 1) a nd ( 2) , a nd “ N o” t o ( 3) . I d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON5

I n he rappe a l , H a m pt on r a i s e s the f ol l ow i ng e rr or s of

l a w a nd/ orabus e s of di s c r e t i on by the tr i a l c our t : ( 1) de ny i ng c ha l l e nge s f orc a us e i n j ury s e l e c t i on; ( 2) al l ow i ng an i nadm i ss i bl e e xh i bi ti n o peni ng ; (3) r ef usi ng t o l etthe j ury hea r pl ea di ng adm i ss i on s; (4) denyi ng re qu es t ed re bu tt al ; (5) m ent i on i ng excl ud ed ev i d en ce rep eat ed l y; an d (5 ) read i n g erro n eo u s j u ry i n stru ct i o n s. A s a n in itia l m a tte r , w e r e v ie w “a d is tr ic t c o u r t's d e n ia l o f a r e q u e s t th a t a ju r o rb e s tr ic k e n f

r o m a ju ry p a n e l f

o rc a u s e to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e r e is ‘f a ir supp ort ’ i n the re cord for [the] concl usi on thatthe j uror w ou l d b e i m part i al . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. D i cker son, 24 8 F . 3d 10 36 , 10 45 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). F or evi dent i ary rul i ngs , w e r e vi e w “ f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, a nd w i l l r e ve r s e onl y i f a n e rr one ous rul i ng re sul t ed i n ‘ subst ant i al prej ud i ce . ’ ” C on roy v. A braham C hevrol et -T am pa, In c., 3 7 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). F in ally, w h en re v iew in g a c o u rt’s char ge t o the j ury, w e e xam i ne “ w hether the j ury c harges , consi dere d as aw ho l e, s uf f i c i e nt l y i ns truc t e d the j ury s o tha tthe j ur or s unde r s t ood the i s s ue s a nd w e r e not m i s l e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t a rke , 62 F . 3d 1374, 1380 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( c i t a t i on o m i tt ed ). R ev ersal d u e t o an erro n eo u s i n stru ct i o n i s p ro p er o n l y i f th ere i s a “s u b s ta n tia l a n d in e r a d ic ab le d o u b t a s to w h e th e rth e ju ry w a s p r o p e r ly g u id e d in i t s de l i be r a t i ons . ” R obe r t s & S c ha e f e rC o. v. H a r da w a y C o. , 152 F . 3d 1283, 1295 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed).6

W e ha ve thor oughl y r e vi e w e d the r e c or d a nd br i e f s of the pa r t i e s a nd ha ve c a r e f u lly lis te n e d to o r a l a r g u m e n t. A p p ly in g th e ap p r o p r ia te s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w to ea ch i ss ue, w e f

i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM .