Opinion ID: 782370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judgment as a Matter of Law Claims

Text: 15 We turn to the question of whether the district court erred in refusing to grant NCS's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We review the district court's decision as to whether to grant a motion for a judgment as a matter of law de novo. Kipp v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 280 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir.2002). The court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and [does] not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)). We must assume that the jury resolved all conflicts of evidence in favor of [the nonmoving] party, assume as true all facts which the prevailing party's evidence tended to prove, ... and deny the motion, if in light of the foregoing, reasonable jurors could differ as to the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency v. Lake Calhoun Assoc., 928 F.2d 299, 301 (8th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted). A jury verdict will not be set aside unless there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the verdict. Browning v. President Riverboat Casino-Missouri, Inc., 139 F.3d 631, 634 (8th Cir.1998). 16
17 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2), a motion for judgment as a matter of law must specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. Adherence to the rule is mandatory. Lynch v. City of Boston, 180 F.3d 1, 13 n.9 (1st Cir.1999); Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat'l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 287 (2d Cir.1998); Guilbeau v. W.W. Henry Co., 85 F.3d 1149, 1160 (5th Cir.1996). [T]he purpose of requiring the moving party to articulate the ground on which JMOL is sought `is to give the other party an opportunity to cure the defects in proof that might otherwise preclude him from taking the case to the jury.' Galdieri-Ambrosini, 136 F.3d at 286 (citations omitted). If specificity is lacking, judgment as a matter of law may neither be granted by the district court nor upheld on appeal unless that result is required to prevent manifest injustice. Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148, 1155 (2d Cir.1994). `[T]echnical precision is not necessary in stating grounds for the motion so long as the trial court is aware of the movant's position.' Rockport Pharm., Inc. v. Digital Simplistics, Inc., 53 F.3d 195, 197-98 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Cortez v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 408 F.2d 500, 503 (8th Cir.1969)). If colloquy between counsel and the trial court fleshes out the motion, it may provide the opposing party with the requisite notice. Galdieri-Ambrosini, 136 F.3d at 287. However, post-trial motion for judgment may not advance additional grounds that were not raised in the pre-verdict motion. Rockport Pharm., 53 F.3d at 197. 18 NCS filed a motion for a directed verdict when Walsh closed her case, and again at the close of all evidence. Both motions were denied by the district court. On neither occasion did NCS submit a memorandum detailing the law and facts upon which it requested judgment in its favor, nor did colloquy between counsel and the court sufficiently explain NCS's legal reasoning. 3 After the jury returned its verdict, NCS renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b). For the first time, NCS filed a thorough memorandum in support of its motion. 19 We typically do not review the sufficiency of the evidence if the trial court denied a motion that does not state specific grounds as required by Rule 50(a) with which NCS failed to comply. NCS did not support its request for directed verdict with specific legal grounds at the time of its motions. It did not specify the grounds upon which it requested a directed verdict until it filed its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law following the jury's verdict. We conclude, however, that NCS clarified its position as to some of the causes of action in its memorandum supporting its motion for partial summary judgment. The memorandum provided the plaintiff and the court with notice of its legal position with regard to Walsh's constructive discharge, failure to hire, and retaliation claims under Title VII and the MHRA. It did not, however, request summary judgment on Walsh's hostile work environment claim. Because NCS did not legally challenge the issue below, it is precluded from raising the issue on appeal. 20 In sum, NCS requested summary judgment on all issues that were ultimately submitted to the jury, with the exception of the hostile work environment claim. The jury returned verdicts for Walsh on several claims, including hostile work environment, and returned general damage awards of $11,000 and $45,000. 4 This court has made it very clear that where the court submits a single damage question for multiple claims and where the evidence supports the actual damage award on any of the claims, the award will not be set aside. LeSueur Creamery, Inc. v. Haskon, Inc., 660 F.2d 342, 346 n. 7 (8th Cir.1981); Hinkle v. Christensen, 733 F.2d 74, 76 (8th Cir.1984). Here the damage awards are clearly supported by the hostile work environment claim. 21 Furthermore, although NCS indicates it objected to the court's proposed jury instructions and offered its own set of instructions off the record in chambers, it failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 and did not preserve its objection to the provided instructions on appeal. Rule 51 mandates that [n]o party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. Our law on this subject is crystal clear: to preserve an argument concerning a jury instruction for appellate review, a party must state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection on the record. Dupre v. Fru-Con Eng'g, Inc., 112 F.3d 329, 334 (8th Cir.1997) (emphasis added). NCS cannot now claim that Walsh is barred from recovering compensatory damages on her hostile work environment claim. We therefore affirm the jury's verdict and award of compensatory damages. 22
23 Even if NCS had preserved its right to appeal the jury's verdict on the hostile work environment claim, the facts of the case support Walsh's claim that she was a member of a protected class and was discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy. Congress amended Title VII to incorporate pregnancy discrimination within the purview of Title VII's protection against gender discrimination. The amended statute provides in part: 24 [t]he terms because of sex or on the basis of sex include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as others persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. 25 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). NCS argues that Walsh is alleging parent or caretaker discrimination, which is not proscribed by Title VII. See Piantanida v. Wyman Ctr., Inc., 116 F.3d 340, 342 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that childcare is not gender specific in the way that pregnancy and childbearing are, and that any discrimination experienced on the basis of a parent's decision to care for a child is not actionable because parenthood is not a protected class). Walsh asserts that she was discriminated against not because she was a new parent, but because she is a woman who had been pregnant, had taken a maternity leave, and might become pregnant again. Potential pregnancy ... is a medical condition that is sex-related because only women can become pregnant. Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 95 F.3d 674, 680 (8th Cir.1996). Because Walsh presented evidence that it was her potential to become pregnant in the future that served as a catalyst for Mickelson's discriminatory behavior, we will not disturb the jury verdict. 26 Once Walsh returned to work from her maternity leave, Mickelson made several discriminatory remarks to her. During a discussion about Walsh's co-worker's pregnancy, Mickelson sarcastically commented to Walsh, I suppose you'll be next. On another day, Walsh took a half-day vacation to go on a boat trip with her husband. After she returned, Mickelson stated, [w]ell, I suppose now we'll have another little Garrett 5 running around. On April 23, 1998, Walsh fainted at work and had to go to the hospital. The following day Mickelson stopped by Walsh's cubicle and said, You better not be pregnant again! Furthermore, when Walsh was pregnant, Mickelson asked Walsh for advanced notification and documentation of her doctor appointments, while other account representatives were not required to provide the same information concerning their appointments. Mickelson's comments, combined with the conduct detailed above in Section I of this opinion, provide ample support for the jury's finding that Walsh was discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy. 6