Opinion ID: 756728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Inconsistency in the Verdict Form

Text: 36 The verdict form submitted to the jury on Smith's retaliation claim required the jury to answer the following interrogatory if it found in favor of Smith: Has it been proved by the greater weight of the evidence that Defendant would have discharged Plaintiff regardless of her filing an EEOC charge of discrimination? The verdict form also instructed the jury that it should answer questions regarding Smith's damages only if it answered the previous question no, and if it answered yes, then it had completed its deliberations on Smith's retaliation claim. 37 When the jury originally returned its verdict, it indicated that it had found in favor of Smith on her retaliation claim. The jury also answered yes to the question of whether Riceland would have fired Smith even if she had not filed an EEOC charge. Despite the district court's instruction to the contrary, the jury answered the damages question, finding that Smith had lost wages and benefits equaling $20,750. 38 After publishing the jury's verdict, the district court discussed the jury's findings on Smith's retaliation claim with the attorneys. The district court indicated that it believed that there was a conflict in the jury's verdict on the retaliation claim and that the jury had been confused by the court's instruction because it had awarded Smith damages, in contradiction to the instruction it had been given about when to answer the damages questions. After hearing objections from counsel, the district court made the following statement to the jury: 39 There appears to be a conflict in the verdict. Now, relative to on the retaliation claim of plaintiff Debra Smith as submitted in instruction number 12, we find in favor of Debra A. Smith plaintiff. Then you move down and here is what the question is: Has it been proved by the greater weight of the evidence that defendant would have discharged plaintiff regardless of her filing an EEOC charge of discrimination? Now let me say this. The question could have been drafted more clear. The answer you put is yes. 40 Let me explain what the question is really saying. What you did, you went ahead and found that she lost wages of $20,750, no compensatory damages. The question is this: if she had not filed the EEOC discrimination charge would she not have been discharged? Would Riceland have not discharged her if she had not filed the EEOC claim? But the way the question--the lawyers drafted this. The Court went along with it. It could have been clearer. But there is a conflict, because in order to justify recovery, it should have been no. 41 ... 42 What I'm going to do is return these forms to you and let you retire to the jury room and consider these two verdicts. 43 (Tr. 830-833.) The jury deliberated for a brief period of time, and then returned a verdict that had one change from their previous verdict; they answered no to the question of whether Riceland would have discharged Smith even if she had not filed a charge of discrimination. Next to this question, the foreperson wrote the word error. 44 Riceland argues that the district court abused its discretion in the manner that it instructed the jury about the discrepancy between its answer to the interrogatory regarding whether Riceland would have discharged Smith if she had not filed a charge of discrimination and its answering of the damages questions. Riceland contends that the district court's comments caused the jury to believe that it was required to go back and change its answer to the interrogatory. 45 A district court has discretion to decide whether a jury's findings on a verdict form are incomplete, confusing, or inconsistent and whether to resubmit the claim to the jury. 6 Williams v. KETV Television, Inc., 26 F.3d 1439, 1443 (8th Cir.1994); Hauser v. Kubalak, 929 F.2d 1305, 1308 (8th Cir.1991). The district judge, who has observed the jury during the trial, prepared the special verdict questions and explained them to the jury, is in the best position to determine whether the answers reflect confusion or uncertainty. Hauser, 929 F.2d at 1308. If a district court decides to address a jury on an inconsistency in its findings, the court must not pressure or coerce the jury, either explicitly or subtly, to reach a certain result through its direction to the jury to reconsider its findings. See Karl v. Burlington North R.R. Co., 880 F.2d 68, 73 (8th Cir.1989). 46 We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by the manner in which it addressed the jury and instructed it on the inconsistency between its answer to the interrogatory and its award of damages on Smith's retaliation claim. Riceland argues that the exchange that took place between the district court and the jury foreperson after the court read the second verdict on the retaliation claims demonstrates that the district court pressured the jury to change its verdict. 7 We disagree. A review of the record indicates that the jury foreperson initially made a mistake and did not answer the interrogatory in a manner consistent with how the jury intended to answer that question. While the district court could have been more clear in its instructions to the jury on the inconsistency in its verdict, we do not believe that it pressured the jury, through its comments to the jury, to change its verdict in favor of Smith. 8 47 We affirm the district court with respect to Smith's retaliation claim, reverse with respect to Thomas' retaliation claim, and remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.