[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14613 & 16-15582

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00540-RH-CAS

JENNIFER SMITH, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(May 8, 2017)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, DUBINA and HIGGINBOTHAM,

* Circuit 

Judges.

 * Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, 

sitting by designation.

Case: 15-14613 Date Filed: 05/08/2017 Page: 1 of 4 
2

PER CURIAM:

Professor Jennifer Smith sued her employer, Florida A&M University 

(“FAMU”), alleging pay inequity, sex discrimination, and retaliation. She claimed 

that FAMU discriminated against its female law professors by paying them less 

than comparable male law professors and retaliated against her when she voiced

opposition. The district court denied summary judgment and the case went to trial. 

The jury found FAMU not liable on any of Professor Smith’s claims. While the 

jury found that Professor Smith was paid less than comparable male professors, it 

was persuaded that the difference was for reasons other than her sex.

At the trial, one of FAMU’s witnesses alluded to a list of professors’ salaries 

that was not produced in discovery. Professor Smith did not object at the time, but

later moved for a new trial based on this perceived ambush. The district court 

denied the motion. Later, under the leadership of a new interim dean, FAMU 

conducted a statistical analysis of publicly available salary data of its law 

professors. That study concluded that FAMU’s female law professors were paid 

less than its male law professors, and FAMU took measures to remedy this gap. It 

also appears that Professor Smith’s fourth application for a promotion, post-trial,

was rejected for stated reasons in tension with reasons given for the previous three 

rejections. Based on these post-trial developments, among others, Professor Smith 

again moved for a new trial and also for relief from judgment arguing that the 

Case: 15-14613 Date Filed: 05/08/2017 Page: 2 of 4 
3

developments were newly discovered evidence and evidence of fraud upon the 

court. The district court denied all of her motions. It is from these rulings, as well a 

one pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine, that Professor Smith appeals.

We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of 

discretion. Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1316 (11th Cir. 

2000). We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for abuse of 

discretion. McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortgage Serv., Inc., 817 F.3d 1241, 1255 

(11th Cir. 2016). The evidentiary rulings of a district court are reviewed for a clear 

abuse of discretion. Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 769 F.3d 1063, 1068 

(11th Cir. 2014). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for relief from 

judgment under Rule 60(d) for abuse of discretion. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh 

Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014). However, as 

Professor Smith candidly acknowledges, plain-error review applies to the objection 

that went unpreserved in the district court. To overturn the district court on plainerror review, “there must (1) be error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects the 

substantial rights of the party, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, 

or public reputation of a judicial proceeding.” Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd.,

297 F.3d 1172, 1179 (11th Cir. 2002).

We are not persuaded that the able district court abused its discretion or 

plainly erred in denying any of the relief that Professor Smith sought. FAMU’s 

Case: 15-14613 Date Filed: 05/08/2017 Page: 3 of 4 
4

pay-inequity study was based entirely on publicly available data that Professor 

Smith drew upon in her presentation to the jury. Indeed, she persuaded the jury that 

she was paid less than comparable male professors. Nor are the remedial measures 

taken to correct the pay difference a confession that they were the product of 

gender bias. FAMU’s challenged rejection of Professor Smith’s fourth promotion 

application came post-trial and is not new evidence entitling her to relief. See 

NLRB v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 569 F.2d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 1978).

We perceive no evidence of fraud perpetrated upon the district court. The 

district court’s well-reasoned rejections of the balance of Professor Smith’s 

objections were sound. Professor Smith’s motion to supplement the record is

denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Case: 15-14613 Date Filed: 05/08/2017 Page: 4 of 4