T h e H on or abl e Joh n G
. H ey bu r n I I , U n i t ed St at es Chi ef D i s t r i ct J u dg e f

or t h e W es t er n D i s t r i ct of * K ent ucky, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0536n.06 F iled: July 31, 2007 Case No. 05- 6626 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT KENN ETH AUST ION, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. CI TYOF CL ARK SVI LLE, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT CO UR T F OR

THE M ID DL E DI STRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEFORE: M ERRITT an d BATCHE LDER, Circuit Judges; HEYBURN , District Judge. * ALICE M . BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant City

of Clarksville (“ Clarksville”) appea ls the district court’s judg ment awa rdingdamag es to Plaintiff Kenne th Austion (“Austion”) for violations of Title VI I of the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964 (“ Title VI I ”), 42 U .S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and the Tenne ssee Human Rights Act (“TH RA”), Tenn. Code. Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq . On appe al Clarksville challeng es the timeliness of Austion’s claims, cer tain evidentiar

y decisions of the district court, the district c ourt’s de n i al o f i t s rene wed motion for judg ment as a matter of law , and the district court’s de nial of its motion for a new tr ial and motion for rem ittit ur. B eca use some of Austion’s claims wer e untimely , we RE VE RSE the district c ourt’s judgme nt a s to these claims, but beca use Clarksville’s other

contentions are without merit, we AF F IRM the rema inder of the district2

c ourt ’s jud g me nt. I. Bac kgr ound A. F ac tu al Bac kgr ound In 1991, Austion, who is Africa n-Amer ican, be g an wor

king f or the Clarksville Police Depa rtment (“CPD”) ; he quickly was selec ted as an office r for the Vice/Na rcotics Unit. Shortly

afte r Au sti on be g an h is e mpl oy

me nt, ano the r CPD of

fi c e r dis pla

y e d r a c ist c art oo ns on

the br ie fi ngta

ble in the police station. Whil e Austion did not personally view the ca rt o ons, he wa s awa re that they
wer e dis p l ay ed in the station. A few year s later, in 1996, he be came the K-9 ha ndler for the Vice Unit. He held that position for two y ear s until 1998 when he was demoted to patrolman bec ause of perf ormanc e def

iciencie s, including pr oblems completing the K-9 pa perw ork. In 2001, an unidentified of fice r hunga noose in a workstation at poli ce he adquar ters. The
no os e wa s d isp lay e d for at least f our m on ths un til Af

ri c an- Am e ri c an D e te c tiv e To ny B lake ly contac ted the National Associati o n for the A dvance ment of Colored People ( “NAA CP”), and the NAACP contac ted the CPD about removingthe noose. While Austion was not intim ately involved in this situation, he was made awar e of the events fr om the other Af rica n-Amer ican of

fice rs in the CPD. In September 2001, Austion soug ht promotion to the pos ition of serg eant. The promotion policy stated that the “ Chief of Police shall make the s elec tion from elig ible candida tes that have a total combined score of 70 or be tter [on the written test],” but P olice C h i ef M ark Smith (“Chief Smit h”) te stified that he “c ould go outside the policy ” in makingpromotion deci s i o n s . Austion
sc or e d hig he r

th an7 0 o nth e w r i t t e nt e s t , b u tC h i e f S m i thd e n i e d

h i s p r o m o t i o nb e c a

u s e o f h is letharg ic work e thic, lack of self motivation, low production, and defic ient paper work. Instead of3

Austion, Chief Smi th promoted eig ht office rs to the ra nk of s er gea n t

— i ncludingfive Cauc asian males, two Afr ican- Americ an males, a nd one Af rica n-Amer ican f

emale. In Mar c h 200 2, Au sti on

wa s p ro mot e d f

ro m patr olm an to de te c tiv e . St ill a sp ir ingto b e c ome
a ser g eant, he ag ain applied for a promotion when a serg eant position bec ame available in Ma y 2002. Th is t ime Chi e f S mith c ho se a Ca uc a sia n off ic e r, John Cr a

bb e , for the se rg e ant pos iti on . On Augus t 28 , 2 00 2, Aus ti on fi le d a c ha rg e of dis c ri min atio n w iththe Eq ua l E mpl oy

me nt O pp or

tun ity Commis sio n ( “ EE OC ” ), a lle g ingthat th e CPD ha d de nie d him a pr omo tio n on the ba sis of ra c e in May 2002. The EEO C issued a rig ht to sue letter on September 6, 2002. In J anuar y 2003, Serg eant Dar

yl B rew er, Austion’s direc t supe rvisor, reque sted that Austion
rec eive a written commendation for his w ork in a pprehe nding a cr iminal outsi de of his jurisdiction. Th e c omm e nd ation wa s n ot p ro c e sse d, and Se rg e ant B re we r i nq

uir e d “ a bo ut 2 0 ti me s” a s to its status. Captain Charles B rooks eve ntually told Bre wer

that Austion’s commendation wa s delayed beca use Austion “wa s g oing thr oug h some things rig ht now .” Serg eant B rew er inter prete d Br ooks’s comment to imply

that the commendation was delayed bec ause of Austion’s EEOC char g e. Moreove r, Captain B rooks, an Af rica n-Amer ican of

fice r, circ ulated a letter de fendingChief Smith a g a ins t a lle g atio ns that he wa s unf a ir ly tr e atin gmin or ity

e mpl oye e s. Th e lett er refer re d to those e mp lo y e e s w h o h a d f il e d d is c r im in ati o nc h ar g e s a s “ c o mp la in e r s ” an d “ d is g r un tled employ ees.” Severa l Afric an-A merica n office rs, i ncluding Austion, Office r Vince L ewis, De tective Martin Hall, and Detec tive Tony Blakely — all of whom had filed EEOC complaints ag ai n s t the CPD — complained to Human Resourc es Dire ctor Michae l Worsham a bout this l etter. Worsham
a sk e d Chie f Smith to sto p its distri butio n, but Chie f Smith re fu se d be c a us e , in his opin ion , th e CPD
e mpl oye e s h a d a

ri g ht t o e xpre ss t

he ir su pp or t f or him
.A ust i o n wo ul d oft en keep a t ap e reco rder hi d d en i n hi s p o cket duri ng co nvers at i o ns wi t h C hi ef Sm i t h and 1 o t her C P D s up ervi sors; t heref o re Aust i o n was able t o pro vi d e t he co urt wi t h a t ap e and t rans cri p t of t hi s m eet i ng.

4 In May 2003, beca

use of the EEOC complaints, C hief Smith asked ce rtain off icer s to remove potentially

offe nsive items from the wor kplace . Austion had two figurines on his desk — a musc ular Ca uca sia n p oli c e man w itha

do g , a nd a tr ibe sma n o n a mot or c y c le . Ch ie f S mith to ld Aus tio n to
remove the tribesman beca use he thoug ht it would offend minorities, but he did not comment on the policeman f

igur ine. A fe w day s later, Austion approa ched Chief Smit h reg arding rumors of an investig ation that Austion was involved in drug s and prostitution. Even though Austion initiated the meeting , Chief Smit h told him t hat he wa s not allowed t o talk unless he was g iven per mission. Then Chief Smi th,
acc ompanied by

his entire command sta ff, we nt on to state: I t sto ps he re . Y ou

have ma de a lle g atio ns . . . . Yo u h ave ma de a lle g atio ns a g a ins t me and throughout the rest of this command staf f. That is disloy alty to the aims and ideas of this police department. That is disrupti ngthe g ood order of this police depar tment. Mr. Austion Ido not c are if y ou g o to the EEOC. Ido not car e if you sue. I am not afr aid nor is any

man in this room afr aid t o lay all of the truth out on the table. We’r e g oing to. And if we’ re do i n g s o mething wrong , Iexpect to be corr ecte d . . . .

. . . Y ou may g o to the Di str ic t A tto rn e y . Y ou may g o to the May or . Y ou

may g o to any c ounc ilm e mbe r that y ou

wa nt. Ido n’ t c are . N ot whil e y ou ’r e on duty . Y ou

wi ll, not — and that is an orde r. 1 F oll ow ingChi e f S mith’ s spir ite d ra nt, he or de re d Aus tio n to leave de sp ite Au sti on ’s re pe ate d e ff or ts to r espond to Chief Smit h’s comments. Approxim ately one month late r, on J une 18, 2003, Austion filed anothe r cha

rg e with the EEOC a lleg ing that Chief Smit h “y elled” at him in retaliation for filing his previous EEOC cha

rg es. The E EOC issued a rig ht to sue letter on June 23, 2003. In Oc tob e r 200 3, the CPD c ha ng e d Aus tio n’ s on- c a ll sc he du le fr om 2:0 0 p .m. to 1 0:0 0 p .m.In i t s b ri ef , C l arks vi l l e m ent i o ns, wi t ho ut de vel o p i ng an argument or pro vi d i ng any l egal s up p o rt , t hat t he 2 d i st ri ct co urt err ed by r eq ui ri ng C l arks vi l l e t o pro vi d e A ust i o n wi t h t he d o cum ent s t hat C P D gave t o t he T B I — d o c u m e n ts w h ic h C la rk sv ill e c h a ra c te riz e s a s “a tto rn e y w o rk p ro d u c t.” W e ne e d no t ad d re ss th is c la im b e c a u se it w a s ra ise d in a p e rfu n c to ry a n d ina d e q u a te m a n n e r. See M cP her s on v. Kels ey , 125 F. 3d 989, 995- 96 ( 6t h Ci r . 1997) (“ Is sues ad vert ed t o i n a pe rf unct o ry m anner, unacco m p ani ed by s o m e ef f o rt at de vel o p ed argumentat i o n, are d eem ed wai ved
. ”). M o reove r, C l arks vi l l e d o es not pro vi d e t he co urt wi t h co p i es of t he al l eged “ at t o rney wo rk p ro d u c t” a n d c ites a b so lute ly no leg a l sup p o rt fo r its a rg u m e n t. 5 — c on sis tin gof mos tly da y tim e ho ur s — to 7:0 0 p .m. to 3 :00 a .m. — r e qu ir ingAu sti on to r e ma in
on c a ll thr ou g ho ut t

he e ve nin gint o th e e arl y

ho ur s of mor

nin g . T his sc he du le c ha

ng e wa s d if

fi c ult
on Au sti on be c a us e he wa s sti ll re qu ir e d to wo rk his re g ula r s hif t f ro m 8: 00 a .m. to 4 :00 p. m., wh ile
re ma ini ngon

c a ll unti l 3: 00 a .m. In Sep te mbe r 200 4, a dr ive -b y sh oo tin g oc c ur re d at a hou se owne d by Of fi c e r T ra vis Hi se l, but in which he re sided only sporadica lly
. Offic er Hisel, a C auca sian office r who befr iended many of his Afric an-A merica

n co-w orker s, thought other Cauca sian CPD officer s might have perpe trated the shooting a s a mea

ns of re taliating a g ainst him for defe nding bla ck office rs and f iling discrimination char g es. B eca use of his suspicions, Offic er H isel told Chi ef Smit h that he wa s uncomforta

ble with the CPD investig atingthe shooting, a nd as a r esult, the entire inve stigation — including the CPD’s file and Chief Smith’s handwr itten notes — was turne d over to the Te nnessee Bur eau of Investig ation (“TB I ”). The CPD a nd the TB Isuspected that the shots might have be en 2 fi re d b y Au sti on or oth e r A f r i c a n - Am e r i c a

n o f fi c e rs to s up po rt

the ir ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt c la ims
a g a ins t th e CPD , an d the CPD or de re d Aus tio n to re lin qu ish his we a po n f or te sti ngto d e te rm ine his i n v o l v em en ti nth e s h o o t i n g. At trial, Austion introduced testimony that supervisory

office rs used ra cial slurs throug hout the depa rtment. For

example, in the l at e 1980s, Chief Smit h used the wor d “nig g er” to describe Afric an-A merica

ns in the C PD. More rece ntly , in 2003, a Cauca sian offic er r efe rre d to Detec tiveA ust i o n’ s co m p l ai nt i ncl ud ed f o rme r P o l i ce C hi ef

Lavo y ed H ud gi ns as a def end ant
. E arl y i n t he 3 p roce ed i ngs, H ud gi ns m o ved f o r s um m ary judgm ent , and A ust i o n co nced ed t hat he s ho ul d be dis m i ss ed
. T heref o re h is ro le in this s u it is irre le v a n t f o r p u rp o se s o f t h is a p p e a l. A u stio n a lso a lleg e d tha t C la rk sv ill e d isc rim ina te d a g a ins t him o n the b a sis o f his ra c e b y failing to 4 pr omot e h i m t o t h e SW AT u n i t f r om 1993 t h r ou g h 1998; h owe v er , t h e j u r y de n i ed t h i s c l ai m, a n d Au s t i on c h os e n ot to a p p e a l i t. T h e re fo re w e a re no t co n c e rn e d w ith this c la im fo r p u rp o se s o f t h is a p p e a l. 6 B lake ly a s a “ nig g e r, ” and

a su pe rv iso ry of fi c e r c a lle d D e te c tiv e Ha ll a “ nig g e r” a ft e r he arr ive d late at the shooting rang e. Th e CPD e ve ntu a lly be c ame c on c e rn e d wi th and atte mpt e d to ne utr a lize any ra c ia l ho sti lity in its workplace. T he CPD hired a g roup of outside consultants from Municipal Te chnica l Advisory Se rv ic e to a sse ss d ive rs ity iss ue s with in the de pa rtme nt. Th e c on su lta

nts e va luate d a

pp ro ximate ly 60% of the de partment a

nd deter mined that rac ial issues were not a problem. L ater , at the CPD’s reque st, the EEOC sent a team to investigate di scrimination complaints, and the EEO C issued noc a us e fi nd ing s f

or e a c h c omp la int
. B. P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound On September

15, 2003, Austion filed suit ag ainst the City of Clarksville al l egingthat 3 Clarksville violated the Civil R ights Ac t of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Titl e VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and the Te nnessee Human Rig hts Act, Tenn. Code. Ann. § 4-21- 101 et seq , b y

(1 ) d e mot inghim on the ba sis of ra c e in 19 98 , (2 ) de nyinghis pr omo tio n o n th e ba sis of ra c e in 2 0 0 1 an d 2 0 0 2 ; ( 3 ) c r e ati n g a h o s ti le w o r k e n v ir o n me n t o n th e b a s is o f r a c e ; and (4) reta liating a g ainst him for filing E EOC char g es. Clarksville filed a motion for summary judgme nt 4 arguing, a mong other thing s, that many of Austion’s claims we re not timely filed. The district c ourt de nie d Cl ark sv ill e ’s mot ion and the c la ims pr oc e e de d to tr ia l. Th e jur y fo un d C l ar k s v i l l e l i a b l e f o r ( 1 ) d e m o t i n gA u s t i o ni n

1 9 9 8 , ( 2 ) f

a i l i n gt o p r o mot e7

Austion in 2001 and 2002, (3) c reating a hostile work environ m en t o n t h e basis of ra ce, a nd (4) reta liating a g ainst Austion for protec ted ac tivity . The district cour t enter ed judg ment awa

rding compensatory

damag es of $300,000, a s dictated by the jury verdic t; back pay of $1,287.84; and front pay of $19,642.00. C larksville filed a rene wed motion for a

judgme nt as a matter

of law, a motion fo r a ne w tri a l, a

nd a mot ion fo r r e mittit

ur . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d Clark sv ill e ’s po st- tr ia l mo tio ns , and Cla rk sv ill e fi le d a

tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l. II. Ana lys is On appe al Clarksville cha lleng es (1) the timeliness of Aus t i o n ’s claims, (2) numerous evidentiar y decisions of the district c ourt, (3) the d i s t ri ct court’s de nial of Clarksville’s re newe d motion for judgme nt a s a matter of law, and (4) the district court’s de nial of Clarksville’s motion for
a new trial and motion for re mitti tur. We will address these arguments in turn. A. T i mel i n es s o f

Au s ti o n ’s Cl a i ms 1. 19 98 De m ot ion Cl aim Austion asserted his 1998 de motion claim under both Title VI Iand the TH RA. A plaintiff must comply

with specific a dminist rative r equire ments in or der to f ile a lawsuit under Title VI I
. See 42 U. S.C. § 2 00 0e -5 . T he fi rs t re qu ir e me nt is that a pla int if f m us t f ile a dis c ri min atio n c ha

rg e wi th
a state or local ag ency within 300 day s afte r the occur renc e of the “alleg ed un l aw fu l em p l o y ment action.” 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-5(e) (1). Austio n ’s E E OC complaint alleg ing that his 1998 demotion
wa s d isc ri min ator

y wa s n ot f ile d unti l Augus t 20 02 , w e ll a ft e r t he 30 0- da y tim e lim it. Ne ve rt he le ss t his 30 0- da

y tim e pe ri od fo r f

ili nga c ha rg e wi th t he EE OC may

be su bje c t to equitable tolling. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan , 5 3 6 U. S
. 1 0 1 , 1 1 3 (2 0 0 2 ). T h e c o n t i nu i n gviolations theory is a specific equitable doctrine that tolls this filing pe riod. Kov ac e v ic h v . Ke nt S tate8

Univ. , 224 F.3d 806, 829 (6th Cir. 2000). The Supre me Court’s dec ision in Morgan larg ely curta iled the continuing -violations theory when a pplied to “discre te discriminatory acts,” see Morgan , 5 36 U.S. at 11 4 (r ej ec t i n g th e “ s er i al v i o l at i o n s ” v er s i o no f t h e c o n t i nu i n g-v i o l at i o n s th eo ry), b u twe h ave
rec og nized that the continuing- violations theory still applies t o discrete discriminatory acts that a re part of a “long standing and demonstra ble policy of discrimination,” see Sharpe v. Cureton , 319 F.3d 259, 268 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The second cate g ory of continuingviolations, invol ving a longsta nding
an d d e m o n s tr a

b l e p o l i c y o f d i s c r i m i n at i o n , i s n o ti mp l i c at e d b y Morgan .” ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld
as a m att er of

law that Austion “provide d substantial testimoni al, statistical, and docume ntary evidenc e tending to show that [C larksville] eng ag ed in a longstanding and demonstra ble policy of discrimination,” and ther efor e found that Austion’s 1998 demotion claim was s aved by the
c on tin uin g -v iol atio ns the or

y . We dis a g re e and fi nd that th e 19 98 de mot ion c la im w a s n ot t ime ly fi le d w iththe EE OC
. To e sta bli sh a lon g sta

nd ing and de mon str a

ble po lic y of dis c ri min atio n, a pla intiff “mu st demonstrate some thing more than t he ex istence of discriminatory treatment in his case.” Haithcock v. Frank, 958 F.2d 671, 679 (6th Cir. 1992). A plaintiff must establish that the employ er’ s “standing op e ratin g pr oc e dure ” inc lud e d inte nti on a l disc ri min atio n ag a ins t the c la ss of wh ic h pla int if f w a s a member. Sharpe , 3 1 9 F. 3 d at2 6 9 (qu o t i n g EEOC v. Pe nton Indus. Publ’g Co. , 851 F.2d 835, 838 (6th Ci r. 1 988)). “ Unre lated incidents of disc rimination will notsuffice to invoke this ex ception; rathe r there must be a continuingover- arc hing policy of discrimination.” LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Hous. Auth. , 55 F.3d 1097, 1106 (6th Cir. 1995). Gene rally this ex ception is strictly

construed and is satisfied only

wher e the de fenda

nt has a known pol icy or rule supporting discrimination. See, e.g. , Dixon v. A nderson , 928 F.2d 212, 217 ( 6th Cir. 1991) (findingan “ove r- arc hing policy” of9

discrimination where that policy appea red pla inly

in the Ohio Revised Code and a dminis t rators op e nly a dh e re d to the Cod e ); Alexande r v. Local 496, Laborers’ Int’l Union , 177 F.3d 394, 408- 09 (6th Cir. 1999) (finding a “long standing and demonstrable policy” whe re the union’s “wor king- inthe -c a lli ng ” ru le , whi c h wa s me mor ia lize d in its c on sti tut ion

and bylaws , r e su lte d in

the “ de fa c to exclusion” of Afric an Amer icans fr om union membership). But see Jack son v. Quanex Corp. , 191 F. 3 d 6 4 7 , 6 6 8 (6 thC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( fi n d i n g “a l o n gs t an d i n g an d d em o n s trab l e p o l i cy

. . . o f t o l er at i n g a
rac ially hostile environment in which racial gra ffiti and sl urs and the dispa rate treatment of Afr icanAmeric an wor

kers took plac e re g ularly”). Aft er thoroughly revie wingthe statistical and do c ume nta

ry e vid e nc e su

bmi tte d to the dis tr ic t c ourt , w e fi nd that th e e vid e nc e fa ils to d e mon str ate that Cl ar k s v il le ma inta in e d

a “ s ta n d ar d o p e r ati n gp r o c e d

ur e ” o f d is c r im in ati n ga g a in s t A f r ic anAmeric ans. Ac cording ly , the di strict court erre d in applying the continuing- violations theory , and
w e h o l d th atA u s t i o n ’ s 1 9 9 8 d e m o t i o nc l a i mw a s n o tt i m e l y f i l e d un d e r T i t l e V II. Au sti on a lso br ou g ht his 19 98 de mot ion c la im un de r the TH RA
. A c la im und e r t he TH RA must be filed “within one y ear afte r t he allege d discriminatory prac tice cease s.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311( d). Austion did not file suit in the district cour t until S eptember

2003, which is much
mor e tha n o ne y e ar a ft e r his 19 98 de mot ion
. In anatte mpt to s ave his c la im, Au sti on a g a in a pp e a ls to t he c on tin uin g -v iol atio ns the or

y . Th e Tenne sse e Sup re me Cou rt ha s r e c og nize d th at th e pla in languag e of the “THRA’ s statute of limitations incorpor ates the c ontinuing[-]vi olation exception.” B o o ke r v. B oeing Co. , 1 8 8 S. W. 3 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 7 ( T e n n . 2 0 0 6 )
. H o w e v e r , “ th e T H RA ’ s s tatute of limit ations does not operate to e x tend the limitations period on discrete a cts of discrimination.” Id. (c i t i n g W eber v . Moses , 938 S.W .2d 387, 391 (Tenn. 1996) ). B e c a us e the 19 98 de mot ion

is a dis c re te a c t of d is cri minatio n, the TH RA ’s statut or ily10

incorpor at edco n t i nu i n g-v i o l at i o n s ex ce p t i o nd o es n o tex t en d th e l i m i t at i o n s p er i o d

h er e. M o reover, even if Tenne ssee c ourts would extend the THRA limit ations period whe re the employ er e ng ag es in a “long standing and demonstra ble policy” of discr imination, see id. at 646 n.2 (notingthat the Tenne ssee Supre me Court was not addr essing and therefor e not expressing an opinion conce rning a “pattern-or -pra ctice” claim, which is equiva lent to t h e Six th Circuit’s “long standing and demonstrable policy” claim), Austion has failed to establish that such a policy exis ted i n the CPD. There fore Austion did not t imely file his 1998 demotion claim under the THRA. Be cause Austion did not t imely asser t his 1998 demotion claim under either Title VI Ior the TH RA , th e re is n o ju

ri sd ic tio na l ba sis fo r t

hat cla im, and

the dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in re fu sin gto dis mis s it
. 2 . 2 0 0 1 a n d 2 0 0 2 Fa i l u re -t o -Pr o mot e C l a i ms Austion also asserte d his 2001 and 2002 failure -to-promote c laims under both Title VI Iand the THRA. Austion did not e x plicitly prese nt his 2001 fa ilure-to-pr omote claim to the EEOC, and he is the re fo re ba

rr e d f ro m a sse rt ingthi s c la im und e r Tit le VI I . Aus tio n, ho we ve r, did inc lud e his 2002 failure -to-promote c laim in his August 2002 EEOC char g e, and the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on September 6, 2002. Once the administrative ag ency notifies the plaintiff of the dismiss al of the c ha rg e by iss uin ga ri g ht- to- su e le tte r, the pla int if f ha s 9 0 d ay s to fi le a

c ivi l a c tio n. 42 U. S.C. § 2 00 0e -5 (f

)( 1) ; Strou ss v . M

ic h. De p’ t of Cor r. , 250 F.3d 336, 342 (6th Cir. 2001). Austion did not file this law suit until September 15, 2003, whic h is more than a year afte r he r ece ived the rig ht-tosue letter. The district cour

tre co gn i z edth i s p ro ce d

ura l d ef i ci en cy b u tn ev erth el es s fo un d

th atAu s t i o n ’s failure to file within the 90-day time perio dwas c ured by the continuing -violations theory . We,11

howeve r, have expressly held that “ [ t ] h e co n tinuing[-]vi olation doctrine . . . doe s not relieve a p l ai n t iff of the need to f

ile an ac tion within 90 day s of re ceivingthe rig ht-to-sue letter .” W ade v. Knoxville Utils. Bd. , 259 F.3d 452, 461 (6th Cir. 2001). The district cour t thus erre d in applying the continuing- violations doc trine to e x tend the 90-day filing period, and we hold that Austion’s 2001
an d 2 0 0 2 f a i l ur e - t o - p r o m o t e c l a i m s ar e t i m e - b ar r e d un d e r T i t l e V II. These c laims are a lso untim ely under the THRA. As pre viously noted, a cl aim under the THRA must be filed “within one y ear afte r t he allege d discriminatory prac tice ce ases.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311( d). Even though Austion’s last promotion de nial occur red in Ma y 2002, he did not file suit until S eptember

2003, more than one y ear later, a nd we ther efor e lac k jurisdiction under the THRA. Moreove r, as discusse d above, the statutorily incorporated continuing -violations exception to the T HR A’ s s t at ute of limitations does not ex tend the limitations period on “discre te ac ts of discrimination.” Booke r , 1 8 8 S
. W
. 3 d at6 4 7 (c i t i n g W

eber , 938 S.W .2d at 391). B eca use both the 2001 and 2002 pro m o t i o nd en i al s ar e d i s cr et e a ct s o f d i s cr i m i n at i o n , th e c o n t i nu i n g-v i olations theory d o e s n o ta

p p l y. Austion attempts to save his 2001 and 2002 fa ilure-to-pr omote claims by argui n g t h at he actua lly broug ht the se claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Whil e Austion’s complaint did s t at e t h at Clarksville’s ref

usal to promote him violated § 1981, we f ind that he clea

rly abandone d § 1981 as a basis for

these c laims. After filing his c omplaint, Austion did not ref er to or in a

ny way invoke § 1981; he did not asser

t § 1981 in any

of his proposed jury

instructions or other motions submit ted to the district court. We there fore find that h e ca n n o t now, havinglear ned of his proc edura l defic iencies unde r Title VI Iand his jurisdictional dilemma under the THRA, appea l to § 1981 — a statutory basis which he ha s alrea dy abandone d — for the sole purpose of savinghis 2001 and 2002H ad A ust i o n t rul y bro ught hi s f ai l ure- t o - p rom o t e cl ai m s und er 42 U
. S.C
. § 1 9 8 1 , t hese cl ai m s wo ul d have 5 be e n t i me l y . 2 8 U. S. C. § 16 58 e s t a bl i s h e s a f ou r - y e a r s t a t u t e of

l i mi t a t i on s f

or e mp l oy me n t di s c r i mi n a t i on c l a i ms b ro u g h t un d e r § 1 9 8 1
. Jone s v . R. R. D onnel l ey & Sons Co. , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 9 , 3 8 2 (2 0 0 4 ); Ant hony v. BTR Aut o. S ea l i n g S

ys. , 3 3 9 F .3 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 4 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). B e c a u se A u stio n fi le d su it o n S e p te m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , a § 1 9 8 1 c la im w o u ld ha v e e n c o m p a sse d his 2 0 0 1 a n d 2 0 0 2 failur e -to -p ro m o te c la im s, w h ic h o c c u rr e d les s tha n fo u r ye a rs p rio r to h is fi ling o f suit. M o re o v e r, w e ha v e re c o g n iz e d tha t d isc rim ina tio n c la im s w h ic h a re b a rr e d un d e r T itl e V II ’s p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts m a y ne v e rth e le ss b e a sse rte d un d e r § 1 9 8 1
. S e e T a rtt v. C ity o

f C la rksv ill e , 1 4 9 F . A p p ’x 4 5 6 , 46 3 (6t h C i r. 20 0 5 ) ( unp ub l i shed case). 12 fa ilure -t o- pr omo te c la ims
. 5 Be cause Austion ha s n o t t imely filed his failure -to-promote c laims under Title VI Ior the TH RA , w e fi nd

that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in fa ili ngto d ism iss the se c la ims
. 3. Hos ti le Wo r k Env ir onm e ntCl aim Austion asserted his hostile work e nvironment claim unde r T i t le VI I . A hostile work
e nv ir onme nt c la im b ro ug ht u nd e r T itl e VI Iis “ c omp ri se d o f a se ri e s o f s e pa

ra te a c ts that c oll e c tiv e ly constitute one ‘u nlawful e mploy ment prac tice.’” Morgan , 536 U.S. at 117 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5( e)( 1)). “ I t does not matter, for purposes of the statute, that some of the c omponent acts of the hostile work envir onment fall outside the statutory time period.” Id. “Pro v i d ed that an ac t contributing to the claim occ urs within the filing pe riod, the entire period of the hostile environment may be conside red by

a cour t for the pur

poses of de termining liability .” Id. In Austion’s J une 2003 EEOC cha

rg e, he a lleg ed that the work environment had become hostile be cause of incidents that
occur red in May

2003. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue -letter on J une 23, 2003, and Austion filed suit on S eptember

15, 2003, which is less t h an 90 day s after rec eipt of the right-to-sue letter
. Consequently , his hostil e wor k environment c laim was timely filed under Title VI I . Moreove r, he
can r ely on past incidents, includ i n g the time-bar red a cts of discrimination, such a s the 2001 and 20 02 pr omo tio n de nia ls and the 19 98 de mot ion , in e sta bli sh ing his ho sti le wo rk e nv ir onme nt c la im. See id. at 113, 117.T he m ere f act t hat t he d i st ri ct co urt ad m i t t ed evi d ence supp o rt i ng A ust i o n’ s 1 9 9 8 de m o t i o n and 20 0 1 and 6 20 02 f ai l ur e- t o- promo t e c l ai ms, ev en t houg h t hos e c l ai ms w er e n ot proper l y bef ore t he cour t , does not r equi r e a ne w t ri al
. E vi d ence surr o und i ng t hese i nst ances i s ent i rel y rel evant and ad m i ss i b l e f o r Aust i o n’ s ho st i l e wo rk e n v iro n m e n t cla im
. See M or gan , 536 U
. S. a t 113, 117 ( n ot i n g t h at a pl ai n t i f f ma y i n t r odu ce e v i den ce of pr i or d i scr i m i nat o ry act s “as ba ckground evi d ence i n s up p o rt of a t i m el y [T i t l e V II ] cl ai m ” and s t at i ng t hat “ t he ent i re p e rio d o f t h e ho stile e n v iro n m e n t m a y b e c o n sid e re d b y a c o u rt fo r th e p u rp o se s o f d e te rm inin g li a b ili ty” ); Jac ks on , 1 9 1 F.3d at 66 8 (not i ng t hat “ even evi d ence o f co nd uct t hat i s t i m e- b arred m ay co nst i t ut e rel evant ba ckground evi d ence i n a pro ceed i ng i n whi ch t he st at us o f a curr ent practi ce i s at i ss ue”) (i nt ernal quo t at i o ns and ci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ). 13 4. Re ta lia ti on C lai m In Austion’s J une 2003 EEOC c harg e, he c omplained that CPD retaliated a g ainst him in May 2003 for filing hi s previous EEOC char g es. As previously discussed, t he EEOC issued a rig ht-tosue-letter on J une 23, 2002, and Austion filed suit on S eptember 15, 2003, which is within t he 90- da y fi lin gpe ri od . T he re fo re , li ke his ho sti le wo rk e nv ir onment

c la im, Au sti on ’s re ta liatio n c la im
w a s t i m e l y

a s s e rt e d un d e r T i t l e V II. B. Evid entiary Issues Clarksville raises thre e evide ntiary issues on appea l, c ontendingthat the district court e rre d by (1 ) a llo wi ngAu sti on

to r e fe re nc e a

“ le ss q ua lif ie d” sta nd ard in e sta bli sh inghis fa ilure - t o - p ro mot e
c la ims , ( 2) a llo wi ngAu sti on to i ntr od uc e the dis c ipl ine of

CPD e mpl oye e s n ot s imi larl y sit uate d to him se lf in e sta bli sh ing his de mot ion

and fa ilu re-t o-pr omo te c la ims , a nd (3 ) a llo wi ngAu sti on

to int ro du c e e vid e nc e of

dis c ri min atio n f

ro m ot he r C PD e mpl oye e s dat ing mor e tha n 15 y e ars pr ior

to tr ia l in e sta bli sh inghis ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt c la im. Th e fi rs t tw o e vid e nti ary c ha lle ng e s r e late to Aus tion’ s d e mot ion and fa ilure -t o- pr omo te
c la ims . B e c a

us e we fi nd

tha t th os e c la ims we re un tim e ly and no t pr op e rl y

be fo re the jury , th e se evidenti ar

y is s u e s ar e mo o t a

n d n e e d n o t b e a d dr e s s e d
. We mu s t s ti ll c o n s id e r Cl ar k s v il le ’s 6 challeng e to the admission of evidenc e fr om other CPD employ ees involvingevents that oc curr ed14

long be fore trial, such as the display of a r acist ca

rtoon in 1992 and a few instanc es in the late 1980s
and e arl y 19 90 s w he re the wo rd

“ nig g e r” wa s u se d thro ug ho ut t he de pa rtme nt. We “re view a district c ourt’s evide ntiary ruling s for a

buse of discr etion, and a district c ourt’s deter mination will be reve rsed only if the abuse of discretion cause d more than harm l es s er ro r.” Tompkin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 362 F.3d 882, 897 ( 6th Cir. 2004)
. Be cause Clarksville did not object at trial to this evidenc e, we revie w onl y for plain e rror . See Preferred R X v. Am. Prescription Plan , 46 F.3d 535, 548 ( 6th Cir. 1995). Under the Supreme Court’s guidance in Morgan , a plaintiff may introduce e vidence of prior discriminatory

acts “ as bac kg round evidenc e in suppor t of a timely

claim.” 536 U.S. at 113. When dealingwith hostil e environment claims, “the e ntire time period of the hostile environment may be considere d by a court for the purposes of de termining liability .” Id. at 117. “Given, theref ore, that the incidents comprisinga hostile w ork environment are part of one unlawful e mploy ment prac tice, the employ er ma

y be liable f

or all ac ts that are pa

rt of this single c laim.” Id. at 118. Under Morgan , mo st o f t

he e vid e nc e of wh ic h Cl ark sv ill e c omp la ins is a dmi ssi ble be c a us e it occur red during the time period of the allege d hostile work environme nt. Moreover , the evidenc e is a lso a dmi ssi ble a s “ba c kg ro un d e vid e nc e ” in s up po rt of a tim e ly ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt c la im. Whil e it is arguable that some of the cha lleng ed evide nce — inc lud i n g a fe w o f t he “nig g er”
c omm e nts in t

he late 19 80 s and

e arl y 19 90 s and

the c ir c ulatio n of the ra c ist c art oo n in 19 92 — li ke ly predated the hostile environment pe riod, this evidenc e is wholly rele vant backg round evide nce f or demon s tr ati n g a r a c ia ll y h o s ti le w o r k e n v ir o n me n t. Cl ar

k s v il le d id n o t o b

je c t to th is e v id e n c e at trial, there by

deprivingthe district court of a n opport u n i t y t o ex clude it on a piec emea l basis, and Clarksville has fa iled to demonstrate that the a dmission of thi s evidenc e constituted plain er ror.15

C. Denial of

Clarksville’s Renewed Motion f or Judgm ent as a Mat terof L aw Clarksville contends that the district cour t should h av e gra n ted its renew ed motion for jud gment as a m att er of

law on Aus ti on ’s f

ail ure- to -pr om ot e cl aim s, ho st il e wo rk en viron me nt c la im, and reta liation c laim. Be cause we have alr eady found that Austion’s fa ilure-to-pr omote claims wer e not timely

filed under

Title VI Ior the THRA and there fore not properly befor e the district cour

t, we need not a ddress whe ther the district court erre d in refusing to gr ant judg ment as a matter of law on the se c la ims . We mus t ne ve rt he le ss a dd

re ss t he ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt a

nd re ta liatio n c la ims
. 1. Hos ti le Wo r k Env ir onm e ntCl aim We review de novo a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of

a pa rt y ’s re ne we d mo tion f

or jud g me nt a s a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). United States v. Alpine I ndus., Inc. , 352 F.3d 1017, 1022 (6th Cir. 2003)
. When eng ag ing in this revie w, we use the same standa rd applied by

the district court. Phelps v. Yal e Sec

. , 986 F.2d 1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 3 (6 t h Cir. 1993). “The evidenc e should not be weig hed. T h e c r e d ib il it

y o f th e w it n e s s e s s h o u ld

n o t b e qu e s ti o n e d
. T h e ju d g me n t o f th is c o urt should not be substit uted for that of the jury .” Schwartz v. Sun Co., Inc. , 276 F.3d 900, 903 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g K & T Enterprises v. Zurich Ins. Co. , 97 F .3 d 17 1, 17 5- 76 (6 th Cir
. 19 96 ))
. We m us t “view the evidenc e in the l ight mostfavor able to the pa rty ag ainst whom the motion is m ade,” and draw “all reasonable infere nces in [its] favor .” Riverv iew Invs., Inc . v. Ottawa Cmty. Improve ment Corp. , 899 F.2d 474, 482 ( 6 t h C i r. 1990). “The motion shoul d be g rante d, and the district cour t
reve rsed, only

if rea sonable minds could not come to a con cl usion other than one f avoringthe movant.” K & T Enterprises , 97 F.3d at 176. “Unde r the thre e-step bur den-s hifting f rame work for

analy zing claims of e mploy

ment discrimination under Title VI I , a plaintiff must first set for th a pr im a fa c ie case of discrimination.”16

Newman v. Fe d. Express Corp. , 2 66 F .3 d 4 01 , 4 05 (6 th Cir . 200 1)
. “ Th e burd e n the n must sh if t to the employ er to a

rticulate some le g itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son for [its actions] .” Mc Do nn e ll Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). “I f t he employ er carr ies this burden, the plaintiff must then prove by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the re asons offe red by the employ er w ere a pre text for discr imination.” Newman , 266 F.3d at 405. To establish a pr im a fa c iec a s e o f h o s t i l e w o r

k e n v i r o n m e n tb a s e d o n r a c e un d e r T i t l e V II,
a pla int if f m us t sh ow : 1) he is a

me mbe r o f a

pr ote c te d c la ss; 2) he wa s su bje c te d to unwe lc ome
rac ial hara ssment; 3) the hara ssmen t wa s b as ed o n rac e; 4) the ha rassment ha d the ef

fec t of
unrea sonably

interfe ringwith his work perf ormanc e b y

c reating a n intimi dating , hostile, or offe nsive work e nvironment; and 5) e mploy er liability exis ted. Hafford v. Seidner , 183 F.3d 506, 512 ( 6th Cir. 19 99 ). To c on sti tut e a

ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt, the wo rk pla c e mus t be “ pe rm e ate d w ith discriminatory

intimi dation, ridicule, a

nd insult t hat is sufficiently sever e or p er vasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employ ment and cr eate an abusive workingenvironment. ” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc

. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (19 9 3 ) (i n t ernal citations and quotations omitt ed). The defe ndant’s conduc t must be “seve re or perva sive enoug h to cre ate a n objectively

hostile or abusive work e nvironment — an e nvironment that a rea sonable person would find hostile or abusive[.]” Id. Additionally , the plaintiff must subjectively perc eive the e nvironment to be abusive. Newman , 266 F. 3 d at4 0 5 (c i t i n g Ha rri

s , 510 U.S. at 21-22). Clarksville attacks e ach inc ident of ra cial hostility , as i f i t wer e st anding alone, a rguing that Austion was unawa

re of the noose hang ing in the police station or unaw are of a f ew discr iminatory
c omm e nts . B ut C lark sv ill e fa ils to r e c og nize that th e c oll e c tiv e imp or t of a ll the se inc ide nts — mo st of wh ic h b oth Au sti on and the CPD ha d kno wl e dg e of — pro vid e a de qu ate e vid e nc e fo r t he jur y to17

infer that a racially hostile work environment exis ted and that Austion wa s subjectively aff ecte d by this environment. The e vidence of both an objec tive and subj ective hostile wor k environment includes: (1) the let ter c irculate d by Capital Books re fer

ringto Austion and the other Af ricanAmeric ans who filed E EOC char g es as “ complainer s” and “ disgr untled employ ees” ; (2) Chief Smit h’s y elling at Austion for makingalleg ations of ra cial har assment and c hara cter izi ngAustion’s alleg ations as “disloy al” and “disrupting ”; (3) the drive-by shooting at Offic er H isel’s house and the suspicion of intra-de partment ra cial motivation; (4) the noose hang ing in the police station; (5) the
rac i s t rema

rks of whic h Austion was awa re; a nd (6) Austion’s testimony that his work conditions
cause him to fee l defe nsive and unea sy at work, suf

fer from depr ession, suffe r fr om para noia, and
car ry a gun and tape rec order

ever y wh ere he g oes. While we re adily admit that the evidenc e of ho sti le wo rk e nv ir onme nt ha ra ssm e nt is s ome wh at me a g e r, we are no t pe rs ua de d th at a re a so na ble juror could not find that a hostile work e nvironment exist ed, espe cially when the e vidence is viewed in the light most favor able to Austion. Consequently , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s denia l of Clarksville’s rene wed motion for judg ment as a matte r o f la w o n Austion’s hostile work environment
c la im. 2. Re ta lia ti on C lai m To demonstrate a pr im a fa c iecase of re taliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he eng ag ed in a c tiv ity pr ote c te d b y

Ti tle VI I ; (2) thi s exer c ise of pr ote c te d r ig hts wa s k no wn to t he de fe nd ant; (3) the de fenda

nt therea fter took a

n adver se employ

ment action ag ainst the plaintiff, or the plaintiff
wa s su bje c te d to severe or pe rv a siv e re ta liator y ha ra ssm e nt b y

a su pe rv iso r; and

(4 ) t he re wa s a
c a us a l c onne c tio n b e tw e e n the pr ote c te d a c tiv ity and the a dv e rs e e mpl oy me nt a c tio n o r h ara ssm e nt. J oh ns on v . U

niv . o f Cin c inn ati , 215 F.3d 561, 578 ( 6th Cir. 2000).18

Clarksville challeng es the third pr im a fa c ie element, claiming that Austion did not prove a n “adve rse e mploy

ment action” or “se vere or per vasive re taliatory

hara ssment.” When viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to Austion, we find that the jury could have found that an adver se employ

ment action occurre d. To demonstrate an adverse employ ment action for

purposes of Ti tle VI I ’s anti -r e ta liatio n p ro vis ion , “ a pla int if f m us t sh owthat a

re a so na ble em pl oy ee w ou ld have f ound the cha lleng ed ac tion materially adver se, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a rea sonable worker from making or supportinga cha rg e of discr imination.” Burlington Nor the rn &Sa nta FeRa ilwa yCo. v . W

hite , -- U.S. -- , 126 S. Ct
. 2 405, 2415 (2006) ( internal quotations omit ted). Austion testified that his on- call schedule was c hang ed in Octobe r 2003, which
wa s af te r he f i l e d h i s E E O C c h ar g e s . T h e j ur y c o u l d h av e f o un d th atth i s c h an g e i nw o r

k h o ur s, requiringAustion to be on call throug hout the night while c ontinuing to work his re g ular shift fr om 8:00 a.m. t o 4:00 p.m., “we ll might have dissuade d a re asonable worke r fr om making or supporting a cha rg e of discr imination,” thus amounting to an a dverse employ ment action. See id. In any event, Austion prese nted s ufficie nt evidenc e to support the jury ’s ver dict that he wa s subjected to se vere or perva sive reta liatory hara ssment. That evidenc e includes: (1) th e C P D’s extreme delay

in proce ssing his commendation; (2) the l etter circulate d by Captain Br ooks ref err ing to those who filed EEOC char g es as “complaine rs” and “disg runtled employ ees” ; (3) Chief Smith’s castig ation of Austi on for filing EEOC char g es; (4) the chang e in Austion’s on-ca ll schedule; (5) the CP D ’ s d e c is io n to ta

r g e t A u s ti o n a s a s u s p e c t in th e dr iv e - b y s h o o ti n go f O f f ic e r H is e l’ s h o u s e . We find that it is not unr easona ble for the jury

to have f ound that Austion satisfied the third eleme nt of his pr im a fa c iecase for retaliation, and we there fore aff irm the di strict court’s denial of Clarksville’s
rene wed motion for judg ment as a matter of law
.19

D. De nia l of C lar ksv ill e ’s M ot ion fora N e w Tri al a nd M ot ion forRe m it ti tu r Clarksville lastly

argues that the district co u rt should have g rante d a new trial bec ause the damag es aw arde d by

the jury wer e excessi v e. C larksville alter natively contends that the ve rdict should be remitted. The jury awa rd in this case a

mounted to $300,000, an d i t b re ak s d own as fo llo ws : ( 1) $1 00 ,0 00 fo r t he 19 98 de mot ion

c la im a nd th e 2001 and

20 02 fa ilure -t o- pr omo te claims; (2) $100,000 for

the hostile work envir onm en t cl ai m ; and (3) $100,000 for the r etaliation
c la im. Th e $1 00 ,0 00 fo r t he de mot ion

and fai lu re-to- pr omo te c la ims mus t be re ve rs e d b e c a us e Austion’s filing of

these c laims was untimely ; conseque ntly , we must consider only the re maining $2 00 ,0 00 in d ama g e s. I n th e a b s e n c e o f un d u e p a s s i o nan d

p r e j u d i c e o nth e p arto f

th e j ur y , w e r e v i e wf

o r a b u se of dis c re tio n a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to g ra nt a re mittit ur or a ne w tri a l bas e d on exce ssi ve dama g e s. Skalka v . Fernald Envtl. Restoration Mgmt. Corp. , 178 F.3d 414, 424 (6th Cir. 1999). W e may not disturb a j u ry aw ar d u n l es s it is aga inst the clear weig ht of the evide nce a s a whole. W ebster v. Edward D. Jones &Co. , 197 F.3d 815, 818 ( 6th Cir. 1999). To be re duced, the awa rd must be (1) beyond the ra

ng e supportable by

proof, ( 2) so excessive as to shoc k the consc ience of the c ourt, or (3) the r esult of a mistake. Leila Hosp. and Health C tr. v. Xonics Med. Sy s., Inc. , 948 F.2d 271, 278 (6th Cir. 1991). Clarksville argues, without citing a ny leg al authority , that Austion’s damag es — which inc lud e an in c e ssa

nt u ne a sin e ss and defe ns iv e fe e lin gat w or k, la c k o f s le e p, ina

bil ity to e at, decr ease d interest in hobbies, depre ssion, and para noia ca using him to ca

rry a gun and tape rec order
e ve ry wh e re he g o e s —

ar e i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u

p p o rtth e j ur

y ’ s aw ar d o f $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
. W e r e

j e c tth is argument and find that if the jur y believed Austion’s testimony reg ardinghis damag es, an a war d of20

$200,000 is not ag ainst the weig ht of evidenc e a n d does not shock the c onscienc e of this cour t. There fore , the district c ourt did not abuse its discr etion in r efusing to grant a new trial or in ref using to order r emittitur. III. Conclusi on For the fore g oing r easons, we RE VE RSE t h e judgme nt and the $100,000 aw ard on Austion’s demotion and failur e - to
- p r o mote claims bec ause the se cla ims were not timely asser ted and there fore the district c ourt lacke d jurisdiction to conside r them. And we AF F IRM the judg ment on Austion’s hostile work environment a nd reta liation claims, and the cor respon d ing a

war ds of dama g e s.