Opinion ID: 162081
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent to Discriminate

Text: 88 Appellants argue that the trial court erred by not requiring Bristol to prove that the County was motivated by discriminatory intent. They assert that this error caused the court to improperly deny (1) their motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 and (2) two proposed jury instructions requiring Bristol to prove discriminatory intent. This argument has no merit. In Midland Brake, 180 F.3d at 1167, this court held that the failure reasonably to accommodate (including reassignment) [is] a prohibited act of discrimination. Thus, assuming Bristol established the other elements of his claim, when the County failed to re-assign him to a vacant position it discriminated against him. Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of Appellants' Rule 50 motion and jury instructions regarding the alleged need for separate proof of discriminatory intent.