Opinion ID: 837965
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: 2003 Jury Services Supervisor

Text: Plaintiff concedes that he cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination for this position. But for the probation supervisor and jury services supervisor positions, plaintiff alleged that he was qualified for the relevant positions and that the jobs were given to other candidates under circumstances in which a reasonable juror could find gave rise to an inference of discrimination. Thus, the burden shifted to defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decisions. Defendant did so in an attempt to rebut each of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the jury was left with a question of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ regarding whether discrimination was a motivating factor in defendant's decisions. Having established a prima facie case, the question therefore becomes whether the trial court should have granted a directed verdict or JNOV to defendant. Directed verdicts and JNOVs are granted only in limited circumstances. [9] This Court reviews motions for a directed verdict or JNOV by drawing all legitimate factual inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. [10] Such motions may be granted on some or all of the issues presented if a verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. [11] A verdict is against the great weight of the evidence if the evidence preponderates so heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand. [12] If the evidence conflicts, the issue of credibility ordinarily should be left with the trier of fact. [13] Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff and granting every reasonable inference to plaintiff, defendant has failed to establish a right to relief. As alleged, plaintiff set forth a prima facie case, which defendant then rebutted with claims that its hiring decisions were nondiscriminatory. This created a question of fact on which reasonable minds could differ. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff, and I believe the verdict must stand. A verdict should not be overturned if there is an interpretation of the evidence that provides a logical explanation for the jury's findings. [14] I believe that the evidence can be interpreted so as to uphold the jury's findings. [15]