14-39 01-cv

Mukta dir v . Bev acco Inc.



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R CU I T



## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S BY S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E CE D ENT I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N TO A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LED ON OR AFTE R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T TE D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D BY FE D E R

A L R ULE O F AP PE L L

A TE P R OCE D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L OC

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A
D OCU M ENT F I LE D W I T H T H I S COUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I TE E I T HE R T HE FE D E R A L AP PEN

D I X OR A

N
E LE C TR O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A CO PY O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENTE D BY COU

N S E L

.

1 At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for the Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in the Ci ty of New York, 4 on th e 20 day of No vembe r,two thou sand fifte en. th 5 6 PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS, 7 DEBRA ANN LIVIN GSTON , 8 CHRIS TOPHE R F. DRONE Y, 9 Circu it Ju dges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X MOHAM MAD M UKTAD IR, 12 Plain tiff- Appel lant, 13 14 15 -v.- 14-39 01 16 17 BEVAC CO IN C., P ETER SCLAFANI, 18 indiv idual ly, 19 Defen dants -Appe llees

. 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21 FOR A PPELLANT: Bryan S. A rce, Chris tophe r L, 22 23 Van D e Wat er, A rcé L aw Gr oup, 24 P.C., New York, New York. 25 26 FOR A PPELL EES: Danie l R. Swans on, K evin 27 O’Don oghue , Hel braun Leve y &

11 O’Don oghue LLP, New York, New York. 2 3 Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct 4 Court for the E aster n Dis trict of N ew Yo rk (B lock, J.). 5 6 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJUDGED 7 AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be 8 AFFIR

MED

. 9 10 Mohammad M uktad ir ap peals fromthe judgm ent o f the 11 Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt f or th e Eas tern Distr ict o f New 12 York (Bloc k, J. ), di smiss ing h is di scrim inati on an d 13 retal iatio n cla ims p ursua nt to a ju ry ve rdict

. We assum e 1 14 the p artie s’ fa milia rity with the u nderl ying facts , the 15 proce dural hist ory, and t he is sues prese nted for r eview

. 16 17 Mukta dir a llege d dis crimi natio n und er fe deral , sta te, 18 and l ocal law o n gro unds of ra ce, n ation al or igin, and 19 relig ion; hosti le wo rk en viron ment; and retal iatio n, ag ainst 20 his f ormer empl oyer Bevac co, I nc. a nd it s own er Pe ter 21 Sclaf ani. Mukt adir had w orkedas a buss er an d foo d run ner 22 at Be vacco , a r estau rant in Br ookly n Hei ghts, fromOcto ber 23 2011 throu gh Ma y 7, 2012. Aft er a three -day trial , the jury 24 rende red a defe ndant s’ ve rdict . Mu ktadi r cha lleng es tw o 25 evide ntiar y rul ings and c ertai n comments of t he di stric t 26 judge that (Muk tadir argu es) d eniedhim a fai r tri al. We 27 affir m. 28 29 1. The d istri ct co urt p ermit ted d efend ants’ coun sel 30 to br ieflyinqu ire o n cro ss-ex amina tion regar ding Mukta dir’s 31 concu rrent empl oymen t at anoth er re staur ant, and h is si milar 32 compl aints of d iscri minat ion i n tha t wor kplac e. M uktad ir

Mukt adir purpo rts t o see k a n ew tr ial. Afte r 1 Mukta dir f iled his n otice of a ppeal , the dist rict court denie d Muk tadir ’s Ru le 59 moti on fo r a n ew tr ial. Mukt adir v. Be vacco Inc. , No. 12-C V-218 4 (FB ) (RE R), 2 015 W L 118 2128 (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 13, 2 015). Muk tadir did not a mend his n otice of ap peal to in clude the denia l of his p ost-t rial motio n, nor d id he file a ne w not ice o f app eal t heref rom. Accor dingl y, wh ile w e hav e app ellat e jur isdic tion over the judgm ent, we la ck po wer t o rev iew t he di stric t cou rt’s posttrial ruli ng. See F ed. R . App . P. 4(a)( 4)(B) (ii); see also, e.g., Goun den v . Cam pagna , 487 F. A pp’x 624, 626 ( 2d Ci r. 2012) (summary order ); Pa ppas v. Un ited State s, 36 2 F. App’x 175, 176-7 7 (2dCir. 2010 ) (su mmaryorde r).

21 conte nds t hat t his t estim ony w as in admis sible as e viden ce of 2 prior bad acts, whic h sho uld h ave b een a nalyz ed an d exc luded 3 as im permi ssibl e cha racte r evi dence purs uant to Fe d. R. 4 Evid. 404( b). The t estim ony d id no t con sist of ch aract er or 5 “bad acts” evid ence, and the d istri ct co urt’s rele vancy 6 deter minat ion w as wi thin its b road discr etion . Se e Uni ted 7 State s v. Quino nes, 511 F .3d 2 89, 3 07-08 (2d Cir. 2007) ; 8 Parke r v. Reda, 327 F.3d 211, 213 ( 2d Ci r. 20 03) ( per 9 curia m); s ee al so Mu ktadi r v. Bevac co In c., N o. 12 -CV-2 184 10 (FB) (RER) , 201 5 WL 11821 28, a t *1 (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 13, 2 015) 11 (“Tha t Muk tadir clai med t hat h e was subj ectedto f airly 12 uncommon i nsult s in two u nrela ted w orkpl aces might sugg est 13 that he di d not corr ectlyreca ll at whic h wor kplac e he heard 14 them or, m ore n efari ously , tha t the y wer e pro ducts of h is 15 inven tion. In eithe r cas e, a jury couldreas onabl y inf er 16 that he wa s not subj ectedto t he in sults at B evacc o.”). 17 18 2. The d istri ct co urt a llowe d int o evi dence a 19 redac ted c opy o f the the Dismi ssal and N otice of R ights 20 issue d by the E EOC i n con necti on wi th Mu ktadi r’s c ompla int 21 again st Be vacco . Th e doc ument was relev ant t o Muk tadir ’s 22 retal iatio n cla ims a s evi dence that Mukt adir made a 23 compl aint to th e EEO C; an d the EEOC ’s de termi natio n was 24 redac ted. Mukt adir argue s tha t, as reda cted, “it was c lear 2 25 to ev eryon e in the c ourtr oom w hat t he EE OC’s deter minat ion 26 was b ecaus e the enti re bo x was whit ed ou t, le aving a gl aring 27 blank spac e.” Pl.-A ppell ant’s Br. 22. Assum ing t his i s so, 28 the m anner of r edact ion d id no t aff ect M uktad ir’s 29 subst antia l rig hts. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 61. Furt hermo re, 30 the d ocume nt wa s sho wn to the jury in th at fo rm on ly 31 brief ly. Befor e the case was submi tted to th e jur y, th e 32 docum ent w as fu rther reda cted, so t hat a ll bo xes 33 corre spond ing t o pot entia l EEO C det ermin ation s wer e 34 elimi nated

. 35 36 Mukta dir a rgues that the alleg ed pr ejudi ce ca used by 37 the i ntrod uctio n of the E EOC d ocume nt wa s rei nforc ed by 38 Sclaf ani’s impr oper, unpr ompte d, an d inc orrec t sta temen t on 39 the w itnes s sta nd th at Mu ktadi r’s E EOC C harge “was foun d 40 basel ess.” Tri al Tr . 251 . Th e dis trict cour t imm ediat ely

The EEOC deter minat ion s tatedthat : “Ba sed u pon i ts 2 inves tigat ion, the E EOC i s una ble t o con clude that the infor matio n obt ainedesta blish es vi olati ons o f the stat utes. This does not c ertif y tha t the resp onden t is in co mplia nce with the s tatut es.” App. of P l.-Ap pella nt 45

.

31 repri mande d Scl afani , andinfo rmed the j ury t hat “ [i]t 2 wasn’ t fou nd ba seles s”; t hat “ it’s not t he ca se”; and t hat 3 they shoul d “ig nore” Scla fani’ s comment. Id. Abs ent 4 evide nce t o the cont rary, we p resum e the juryfoll owed the 5 distr ict c ourt’ s ins truct ion, see U nitedStat es v. Esso , 684 6 F.3d 347, 352 ( 2d Ci r. 20 12), so th e comment did n ot af fect 7 Mukta dir’s subs tanti al ri ghts. 8 9 3. The d istri ct ju dge’s init ial g reeti ng to the 10 impan eled jury on Se ptemb er 8, 2014 , bri efly refer encedthe 11 event s of Septe mber 11, 2 001. Mukt adir conte nds t hat t his 12 evide nced bias again st Mu slims and preju dicedthe jury 13 again st Mu ktadi r. A lthou gh it may have been prude nt to 14 avoidment ion o f the terr orist atta ck a few d ays b efore the 15 anniv ersar y, we do n ot ag ree t hat t he re marks evid encedbias 16 or pr ejudi ced t he ju ry. The j udge menti oned the a ttack as 17 an ev ent t hat, in hi s obs ervat ion, insti lled a sen se of 18 citiz enshi p in poten tial juror s andprid e abo ut th e 19 respo nsibi lity of ju ry se rvice , andhe e mphas ized the 20 impor tance of d ivers ity a nd in clusi on. The r emark s didnot 21 bespe ak bi as ag ainst Musl ims o r anyothe r gro up. 22 23 4. Mukta dir a lso c ites a bri ef co lloqu y dur ing 24 Sclaf ani’s test imony . Sc lafan i spo ntane ouslyprop osed that 25 Judge Bloc k “co me to Beva cco a fter all t his”; the judge 26 respo nded he wa s “no t goi ng to do t hat. Mayb e the 27 juror s. . . . Y ou ma y hav e som e cus tomer s her e in the 28 futur e.” Trial Tr. 247. A re view of th e tri al tr anscr ipt 29 evide nces no re ason to be lieve that this “sin gle j ovial 30 excha nge .

. . distr act[e d] th e jur y fro m Muk tadir ’s 31 discr imina tion and r etali ation clai ms or und[ id] t he Co urt’s 32 stand ard i nstru ction that noth ing i t say s dur ing t rial is 33 inten ded t o con vey a ny op inion abou t the meri ts of thos e 34 claim s.” Mukta dir, 2015 WL 11 82128 , at *3; s ee Un ited 35 State s v. Salam eh, 1 52 F. 3d 88 , 128 (2d Cir. 1998) 36 (“Rev ersal for judic ial b ias i s app ropri ate o nly w here an 37 exami natio n of the e ntire reco rd de monst rates that ‘the 38 juror s hav e bee n imp resse d wit h the tria l jud ge’s parti ality 39 to on e sid e to the p oint that this becam e a f actor in t he 40 deter minat ion o f the jury .’” ( quoti ng Un ited State s v. 41 Valen ti, 6 0 F.3 d 941 , 946 (2d Cir. 1995) )). 42 43 5. Final ly, M uktad ir ch allen ges t he ha ndlin g of the 44 dismi ssal of Ju ror # 2. T here was a ten- minut e bre ak af ter 45 the c lose of th e def ense case and b efore summ ation s. U pon 46 retur ning to th e cou rtroo m aft er th is br eak, the d istri ct 47 judge info rmed the p artie s tha t a j uror had l ikelyover heard

41 the j udge in th e hal lway chara cteri ze th e cas e to a 2 colle ague as a “litt le st upid trial ” or “stup id li ttle 3 trial .” T rial Tr. 3 01-02 . Mu ktadi r’s c ounse l req ueste d 4 that the c ourt dismi ss th e jur or, a nd Ju ror # 2 was dism issed 5 over defen dants ’ obj ectio n. B efore dism issal , Jud ge Bl ock 6 quest ionedJuro r #2; the juror stat ed th at he had heardthe 7 comme nt an d con firme d tha t he had n ot me ntion ed it to t he 8 other s. T he ju ror w as pe rmitt ed to sit durin g summatio ns 9 and t hen e xcuse d; he did not d elibe rate. 10 11 Mukta dir o bject s tha t Jur or #2 was not e xcuse d 12 immed iatel y, an d was allo wed t o ret urn t o the juryroom , 13 colle ct hi s thi ngs, and s it fo r summatio ns; h e spe culat es 14 that the j uror may h ave, subse quent to t his q uesti oning , 15 revea led t he ju dge’s rema rks t o the rest of t he pa nel. As 3 16 an in itial matt er, M uktad ir’s couns el di d not obje ct 17 conte mpora neous ly to the juror ’s be ing p ermit ted t o bri efly 18 retur n to the j ury r oom a nd si t for summ ation s. M oreov er, 19 Juror #2 w as su ffici entlywarn ed ag ainst repe ating the 20 judge ’s co mment s to the r est o f the jury . Th e cir cumst ances 21 suppo rt th e fin ding that the j udge’ s comment did n ot re ach 22 the j ury t hat d elibe rated

. Tri al Tr . 303 -04, 360-6 1; se e 4 23 Mukta dir, 2015 WL 11 82128 , at *2. 24 25 For t he fo regoi ng re asons , andfind ing n o mer it in 26 Mukta dir’s othe r arg ument s, we here by AFFIR M the j udgme nt of 27 the d istri ct co urt.

The distr ict c ourt sugge sted that Juror #2 w ould be 3 permi tted to st ay fo r summatio ns so that the rest of th e panel woul d not “thi nk th ere i s any thing wron g.” Trial Tr. 304.

Mukt adir argue s tha t the test set forth in M anleyv.

4
AmBas e Cor p., 3 37 F. 3d 23 7, 25 2 (2dCir. 2003 ), sh ould have been appli ed to dete rmine whet her t he ju dge’s comm ent resul ted i n jur or pr ejudi ce. Howev er, M anleygove rns a n analy sis o f pre judic e whe n ext ra-re cord infor matio n does reach deli berat ing j urors . Se e id. (whe n a delib erati ng ju ror h as be en ex posedto o utsid e inf luenc e, the c ourt shoul d app ly an obje ctive test to d eterm ine wheth er th at in fluen ce pr ejudi ced d elibe ratio ns, f ocusi ng on: “ (1) ‘ the n ature ’ of the i nform ation or c ontac t at issue , and(2) ‘its proba ble e ffect on a hypo theti cal

avera ge ju ry’” (quot ing U nitedStat es v. Schw arz, 283 F .3d 76, 9 9 (2dCir. 2002 ))).

51 FOR T HE CO URT: 2 CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK 3 By: 4 5 6

6