Opinion ID: 769682
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion for a New Trial: Sufficiency of the Evidence.

Text: 18 Following the verdict, Stephens summarily moved for a new trial, stating only that [t]he verdict of the jury is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence and the law. (J.A. at 719.) With somewhat more detail, Stephens now appeals the District Court's denial of her Motion, arguing that because Roberson admitted that he regularly directed sexually suggestive comments and actions towards her, the jury could not have rationally found for Rheem. 19 A district court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on the sufficiency of the evidence is virtually unassailable on appeal and will be disturbed only upon a finding of a clear abuse of discretion. Czajka v. Black, 901 F.2d 1484, 1485 (8 th Cir. 1990). We are certain that no such abuse occurred in this case. Indeed, the verdict can easily be reconciled with the evidence presented at trial. 20 The jury heard numerous witnesses testify that Stephens appeared to enjoy spending time with Roberson notwithstanding his overtly sexual overtures. Although the jury also heard Stephens testify to the contrary, the jury was free to disbelieve her testimony. See DiCarlo v. Keller Ladders, Inc., 211 F.3d 465, 468 (8 th Cir. 2000). Even if we could second-guess the jury's measure of credibility, we are not so inclined. See United States v. Anderson, 78 F.3d 420, 422-23 (8 th Cir. 1996). 21 Further, Rheem's concession that Roberson's conduct was objectively inappropriate did not, as Stephens argues, mandate a verdict in her favor. Rather, an employer's inappropriate conduct is only one facet of a successful sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff must also establish that the conduct was unwelcome and subjectively inappropriate. See Schmedding v. Tnemec Co., Inc., 187 F.3d 862, 864 (8 th Cir. 1999). As previously discussed, the jury reasonably rejected such a finding in this case. The District Court's denial of Stephens' Motion for New Trial was therefore wholly appropriate and did not approach an abuse of discretion. 22