Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/719/346/148931/
Timestamp: 2019-08-20 19:16:15
Document Index: 532071090

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 1981', '§ 1331', '§ 2000', '§ 1862']

33 Fair Empl.prac.cas. 19, 32 Empl. Prac.dec. P 33,863,14 Fed. R. Evid. Ser v. 607cordell Trotter, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James A. Todd, et al., Defendants-appellees, 719 F.2d 346 (10th Cir. 1983) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1983 › 33 Fair Empl.prac.cas. 19, 32 Empl. Prac.dec. P 33,863,14 Fed. R. Evid. Ser v. 607cordell Trotter, P...
33 Fair Empl.prac.cas. 19, 32 Empl. Prac.dec. P 33,863,14 Fed. R. Evid. Ser v. 607cordell Trotter, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James A. Todd, et al., Defendants-appellees, 719 F.2d 346 (10th Cir. 1983)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 719 F.2d 346 (10th Cir. 1983)
Appellant Cordell Trotter (Trotter) brought an action for racial discrimination in employment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (Title VII), and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (equal protection). The district court impaneled an advisory jury pursuant to Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 39(c), 28 U.S.C.A. to hear Trotter's constitutional and Title VII claims. Upon motion at the close of the plaintiff's case by the defendants James A. Todd, Theodore Little and J. Lynn Helms, Director of the Federal Aviation Administration,1 the court dismissed Trotter's Secs. 1981 and 1983 claims. At the close of all of the evidence and trial procedure, the court submitted special interrogatories to the advisory jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants Todd and Little in their individual capacities on the constitutional claims. The jury further found that Trotter had failed to establish a prima facie case of a Title VII violation. Thus, Trotter was denied relief on all claims.
Trotter contends that the district court was in error by adopting the advisory jury's finding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of a Title VII violation. He argues that the court failed to independently consider the evidence concerning this claim. We disagree. Rule 39(c), supra, specifically authorizes a trial court, in its discretion, to impanel an advisory jury in any case "not triable of right by a jury." A discrimination action does not carry with it a jury trial right. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 164, 101 S. Ct. 2698, 2703, 69 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1981); Slack v. Havens, 522 F.2d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 1975); Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791, 802 (4th Cir. 1971), cert. dismissed under Rule 60, 404 U.S. 1006, 92 S. Ct. 573, 30 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1971); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122, 1125 (5th Cir. 1969). Thus, the district court properly impaneled the advisory jury pursuant to Rule 39(c).
The district court, after receiving the findings of the advisory jury through special interrogatories, made, as it must, its independent findings and conclusions as to the plaintiff's claims. Cox v. Babcock and Wilcox Co., 471 F.2d 13, 14 (4th Cir. 1972). When reviewing a judgment where the jury's findings are advisory only, we must apply the "clearly erroneous" test to the court's findings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Security Mutual Cas. Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 471 F.2d 238, 245 (8th Cir. 1972). The findings of a trial court are not clearly erroneous unless a complete review of the record definitely and firmly convinces us that a mistake has been made. Beck v. Quiktrip Corp., 708 F.2d 532, 535 (10th Cir. 1983). A review of the entire record in this case convinces us that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on his Title VII claim.
The Supreme Court of the United States has elicited a four-prong test for a plaintiff to meet when establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination in employment under Title VII. He must show "(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he ... was qualified for [the position] ...; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications." McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). See also Mohammed v. Callaway, 698 F.2d 395, 398 (10th Cir. 1983). We agree with the district court that Trotter failed to meet this test.5 Although a member of a racial minority, Trotter obviously was not "qualified" for the advanced electronics technician position. His failure, by a wide margin, of the vital "Concepts" exam on the waveguide localizer after extensive study time and tutoring,6 presented substantial evidence of Trotter's inability to adequately perform in this advanced position. Further, the defendants Todd and Little did comply with FAA internal policy regarding retake examinations.
We have held that the qualification of such a witness is a preliminary question within the sound discretion of the trial court. Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844, 847 (10th Cir. 1979). This determination must be upheld absent a showing that it was clearly erroneous or that a clear abuse of judicial discretion existed. Id. Our review of the entire record reveals that the district court did not err in excluding the proffered testimony of Claude Mays as to the ultimate issue--whether race-based employment discrimination existed in the Kansas City Sector of the FAA. The jury was presented substantial admissible evidence on this matter from which they could draw their own conclusions of law as to the ultimate issue. See Denny v. Hutchinson Sales Corp., 649 F.2d 816, 822 (10th Cir. 1981).
Finally, Trotter contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and his motion for a new trial on his Sec. 1981 claim. We hold that the district court properly denied both motions. A motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be predicated by a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b); Continental Baking Co. v. Utah Pie Co., 349 F.2d 122, 156 (10th Cir. 1965), rev'd on other grounds, 386 U.S. 685, 87 S. Ct. 1326, 18 L. Ed. 2d 406, reh'g denied, 387 U.S. 949, 87 S. Ct. 2071, 18 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1967). There is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff made the requisite motion for directed verdict.
The trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial is within the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Howard D. Jury, Inc. v. R. & G. Sloane Manufacturing Co., Inc., 666 F.2d 1348, 1352 (10th Cir. 1981); Rasmussen Drilling v. Kerr-McGee, 571 F.2d 1144, 1149 (10th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862, 99 S. Ct. 183, 58 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1978). No error in any ruling by a trial court contemplates a ground for a new trial unless the action is inconsistent with substantial justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61.
After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that no error was committed in this case and that, therefore, substantial justice was done. Further, there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's Sec. 1981 claim at the close of his case. The Supreme Court has held that a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 for employment discrimination precludes a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 99 S. Ct. 2345, 60 L. Ed. 2d 957 (1979); Brown v. General Service Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 96 S. Ct. 1961, 40 L. Ed. 2d 402 (1976). Thus, the district court properly dismissed Trotter's Sec. 1981 claim.
At the time of the alleged discrimination, Little was Trotter's supervisor and Todd was the manager of the sector where Trotter worked. Thus, Trotter sued defendants Todd and Little in their individual capacities pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Helms was made a party defendant to the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)
The plaintiff also raises, in the first instance on appeal, a challenge to the makeup of the jury. He urges us to overturn the verdict because the all-white jury in this case, which involves a black civil rights plaintiff, will inherently act prejudicially. See Brief of Appellant at 20-21. We reject this contention solely on the ground that the plaintiff, after demanding a jury trial, was represented by counsel during jury selection and at no time challenged the racial composition of the jury. Any challenge to the racially motivated systematic exclusion of jurors in the United States District Courts must be raised before or during voir dire examination. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1862, 1867(c). Thus, Trotter may not now raise this claim for the first time on appeal. United States v. Grose, 525 F.2d 1115, 1118 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 973, 96 S. Ct. 1477, 47 L. Ed. 2d 743 (1976); United States v. De Alba-Conrado, 481 F.2d 1266, 1269 (5th Cir. 1973). See also United States v. Jobe, 487 F.2d 268, 270 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 955, 94 S. Ct. 1968, 40 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1974)