Opinion ID: 7263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pattern or Practice Jury Instruction

Text: Trial Plaintiffs argue that their pattern and practice instruction was erroneously excluded.
We apply the same standard of review to the district court's exclusion of the requested pattern and practice instruction as we applied in our analysis of the omitted mixed motives instruction.
A pattern or practice claim is not a separate cause of action, but merely another method by which disparate treatment can be shown. The Supreme Court has set out the burden of establishing a pattern or practice of discrimination. [D]emonstrating the existence of a discriminatory pattern or practice establishes a presumption that the individual class members had been discriminated against on account of race. 17 Finally, even if the jury instructions were erroneous, we will not reverse if we determine, based on the entire record, that the challenged instruction could not have affected the outcome of the case. FDIC v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1318 (5th Cir.1994). Trial Appellants have failed to satisfy this burden. The jury plainly did not believe their testimony under the lower inferential evidence standard employed in the McDonnell Douglas analysis. Consequently, a reasonable jury could not have found that the evidence presented constituted the higher level of direct evidence necessary to shift the burden of persuasion to the defendant. 19 Proving isolated or sporadic discriminatory acts by the employer is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of discrimination; rather it must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that racial discrimination was the company's standard operating procedure—the regular rather than the unusual practice. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867, 875-76, 104 S.Ct. 2794, 2799, 81 L.Ed.2d 718 (1984) (citations omitted, emphasis supplied). Trial Plaintiffs' proposed instruction stated, in relevant part, If you find that in its selection of employees for termination the defendant regularly and purposefully treated persons age 40 or older less favorably than other employees on account of their age, then you must find that defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. If you find that the defendant discriminated as a pattern or practice, you must presume that each individual plaintiff was discriminated against. Once a pattern or practice has been proven, the burden of proof shifts to defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated the plaintiff even if it had not maintained a pattern or practice of age discrimination. Unless defendant makes this showing, you must find that the defendant discriminated against each individual plaintiff. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in your mind a firm belief or conviction as to the matter at issue. This involves a greater degree of persuasion than is necessary to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard; however, proof to an absolute certainty is not required. Trial Plaintiffs' proposed instruction failed to properly state the law. In the first instance, the instruction fails to state that Trial Plaintiffs must show disparate treatment by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, the instruction fails to include the Supreme Court's caveat that isolated and individual acts of discrimination are not sufficient to establish a pattern or practice. Finally, the instruction improperly states that Appellees must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it 20 would have terminated the plaintiff even if it had not maintained a pattern or practice of age discrimination.18 (emphasis supplied). However, even assuming—as the Trial Plaintiffs contend—that the district court erred by rejecting rather than modifying the requested instruction, Trial Plaintiffs have failed to show that they were entitled to the instruction. Trial Plaintiffs simply failed to show, either through statistics or anecdotal evidence, that anything other than sporadic and individual acts of discrimination occurred. In fact, the jury reasonably concluded that Trial Plaintiffs had failed to show any individual discrimination.