Opinion ID: 2979108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal of Factual Findings

Text: Bayraq argues that the district court erred in its factual findings and when it refused to consider her motion pursuant to Rule 52 and Rule 59. She contends that the district court should have made additional findings of fact that would have supported her retaliation claim: namely, findings that key witnesses lied about their knowledge of her EEOC case and about their motives for taking certain actions against her. A district court’s findings of fact in a Title VII case are reviewed for clear error. Zamlen v. City of Cleveland, 906 F.2d 209, 217 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493, 499 (6th Cir. 1987)). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)) (internal quotations omitted). “When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52(a) demands even greater deference to the trial court’s findings; for only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said.” Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540, 543 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575). “These credibility judgments are particularly the province of the district court, with only a narrow scope for appellate intervention when a district court has relied on testimony that simply cannot be believed.” New Conn. Bank & Trust v. Mussa (In re Cleveland Tankers, Inc.), 67 F.3d 1200, 1205 (6th Cir. 1995). Furthermore: 8 [t]his Court has enunciated a liberal standard for reviewing the adequacy of a District Court's findings. Findings should be comprehensive and relevant to the issues so as to provide a rational basis for the trial court's decision. It is not necessary for the District Court Judge to prepare elaborate findings on every possible issue raised at trial. However, there must be findings, in such detail and exactness as the nature of the case permits, of subsidiary facts on which an ultimate conclusion can rationally be predicated. The findings should be explicit so as to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court's decision, and to enable it to determine the grounds on which the trial court reached its decision. Grover Hill Grain Co. v. Baughman-Oster, Inc., 728 F.2d 784, 792-93 (6th Cir. 1984) (internal citations omitted). Bayraq contends that the documentary proof and testimony of Steward, Ford, and Traughber were “so internally inconsistent or implausible on their face that a reasonable fact finder would discredit the testimony.” She also accuses each witness of perjury. Bayraq falls well short of satisfying her burden on appeal. Steward testified consistently at trial that, although she knew about Bayraq’s grievances, she did not know that any of them pertained to sexual harassment until after she had given Bayraq a score of two on her performance review. She admitted seeing documents that said EEOC, but testified that she did not know what EEOC meant at the time, and did not inquire further into the matter. Ford testified that she did not know about the EEOC charge, or any allegations of sexual harassment, until after Bayraq filed suit, thus it could not have been her reason for taking away Bayraq’s supervisory duties in December 2006. Traughber testified that he received reports, sometimes oral, after his staff investigated a grievance that alleged retaliation or harassment. He reviewed each report and determined if the accusation was grievable. Bayraq presented no documentary evidence or testimony that would compel a reasonable fact finder to not believe STDPP’s witnesses. In sum, the testimony presented by each witness was plausible, and it would not be appropriate for this court to reassess credibility on appeal. 9