United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1268

___________

Kathy J. Freeman, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of South Dakota.

Dr. Jon Green; South Dakota State *

Board of Regents, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 11, 2002

Filed: November 19, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1995, Dr. Jon Green was hired as Superintendent of the South Dakota

School for the Deaf, where Kathy J. Freeman worked as a houseparent supervisor.

Dr. Green gradually instituted changes that were consistent with the recommendations

of an outside consultant but that alienated long-standing members of the staff. In

1995 and 1996, Freeman complained to the School’s equal employment officer that

Dr. Green had harassed and mistreated female staff, including Freeman. In February

1997, after Dr. Green had written a memorandum to the Board of Regents proposing

a complete restructuring of the residence hall, Freeman submitted a written complaint
1

The HONORABLE LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, Chief Judge of the United

States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

-2-

accusing Dr. Green of sexual harassment and retaliation, which the School

investigated. In early 1998, the School put Freeman on a work improvement program

to address continued problems at the residence hall. In June 1998, Dr. Green’s

proposed restructuring was implemented, and six residence hall staff members were

terminated, including Freeman, whose position was eliminated. Freeman then

commenced this action against Dr. Green and the South Dakota State Board of

Regents, asserting Title VII claims for sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation and

an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After a lengthy trial, the jury

returned a verdict for defendants. Freeman now appeals, arguing that the district

court1

 erred in denying her motion for a new trial because the verdict was against the

clear weight of the evidence and a miscarriage of justice.

Our standard of review of this issue is exceedingly deferential to both the jury

verdict and the district court’s superior vantage point for weighing the trial evidence.

As retired Associate Justice Byron White wrote for our court in Pulla v. Amoco Oil

Co., 72 F.3d 648, 656 (8th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted):

We have made clear that district courts enjoy broad discretion in

choosing whether to grant a new trial, and thus, we accord great

deference to their Rule 59 rulings. While we may reverse a district

court’s denial of a Rule 59 motion where its judgment rests on an

erroneous legal standard, where the basis of a Rule 59 ruling is that the

verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, and where the district

court balances and weighs the evidence based on the proper legal

standards, the court’s denial of a Rule 59 motion is virtually

unassailable. In such cases, we reverse for a clear abuse of discretion

only where there is an “absolute absence of evidence” to support the

jury’s verdict. 
-3-

After careful review of the record, we conclude that Freeman’s appeal falls far short

of establishing a clear abuse of discretion under this standard. Accordingly, we

affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.