Opinion ID: 1930607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Text: The standard for granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law is the same as that applicable to its precursor, a motion for a directed verdict. Martinelli v. Hopkins, 787 A.2d 1158, 1165 (R.I.2001) (quoting Raimbeault v. Takeuchi Manufacturing (U.S.), Ltd., 772 A.2d 1056, 1062 (R.I.2001)). When considering such a motion, the trial justice examines: the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and draws from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party.    If, after such a review, there remain factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions, the motion for [judgment as a matter of law] must be denied, and the issues must be submitted to the jury for determination. Id. (quoting Raimbeault, 772 A.2d at 1062). If, on the other hand, no relevant issues of fact exist and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then the trial justice should grant the motion and dismiss the complaint. Id. (quoting Swerdlick v. Koch, 721 A.2d 849, 856 (R.I.1998)). In reviewing a trial justice's decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, this Court `is bound by the same rules and [standards] as the trial justice.' Id. (quoting Raimbeault, 772 A.2d at 1063). With respect to the defendant's liability, the trial justice aptly decided that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the plaintiff was fired by the defendant in retaliation for his having called the Department of Health. Accordingly, he denied the defendant's Rule 50 motion as to liability. The trial justice noted in doing so: Now as to liability under a Rule 50 standard, I am compelled to deny it because a jury could believe that Mr. Badot provoked Mr. Adams in his office.    The jury could also infer that the very fact of Mr. Adams' complaint to the Department of Health was the real grounds for terminating Mr. Adams, and choose to believe that rather than the reasons stated by Pizzeria Uno, that his termination was making the threat. After examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the trial justice decided that a reasonable jury could have found that Badot's actions in badgering the plaintiff and then having him arrested were a pretext for retaliating against the plaintiff for having called in the Department of Health. The trial justice concluded that a reasonable jury certainly could have found that the confrontation between Badot and the plaintiff was designed by Badot to provoke a reaction from the plaintiff that would serve as Badot's excuse to fire him, even though that was merely a pretext for the real reason  the plaintiff's call to the Department of Health. We are satisfied that the trial justice did not err in denying the defendant's Rule 50 motion as to its liability.