Opinion ID: 2069652
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ms Moore's Sex (Gender) Discrimination Claim And UMWA's Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Or New Trial

Text: UMWA contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial regarding its liability. Generally, a motion for judgment after trial and verdict is granted only in `extreme' cases. Daka, Inc. v. Breiner, 711 A.2d 86, 96 (D.C.1998) (quoting Oxendine v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 506 A.2d 1100, 1103 (D.C.1986)). [W]e review the denial of such a motion deferentially. Reversal is warranted only if `no reasonable person, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, could reach a verdict in favor of that party.' Id. (quoting Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland, 631 A.2d 354, 363 (D.C.1993) (citations and internal quotations omitted)). See also District of Columbia v. Walker, 689 A.2d 40, 42 (D.C.1997). Furthermore, [t]he trial court has broad latitude in passing upon a motion for new trial, and we review the disposition of such a motion only for abuse of discretion. Gebremdhin v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 689 A.2d 1202, 1204 (D.C.1997). To grant a motion for a new trial, the trial court must find that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, or that there would be a miscarriage of justice if the verdict is allowed to stand. Id. Ms. Moore claimed that she was terminated from her employment as an associate editor of the UMW Journal because of her sex (female gender), and that UMWA hired a less qualified male to fill her position, in violation of the DCHRA. D.C.Code § 1-2512(a)(1) and (3) provide in pertinent part: (a) General. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation of any individual: (1) By an employer. To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual; or otherwise to discriminate against any individual, with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including promotion; or to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee;    (3) By a labor organization. [T]o classify, or fail, or refuse to refer for employment any individual in any way, which would deprive such individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities, or otherwise adversely affect his [or her] status as an employee or as an applicant for employment[.] To prove sex or gender discrimination under the DCHRA, Ms. Moore was required, initially, to make a prima facie showing of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Arthur Young & Co., supra, 631 A.2d at 361. A prima facie case may be made by demonstrating that: (1) the employee was a member of a protected class, (2) ... she was qualified for the [position or] promotion, (3) ... she was rejected upon seeking the promotion, and (4) ... a substantial factor in that rejection was [her] membership in the protected class. Id. If the employer then satisfies its burden `by articulating some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for [the termination],' Id. (citations omitted), the burden shifts back to the employee to prove, ... by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer's stated justification for its action `was not its true reason but was in fact merely a pretext' to disguise discriminatory practice. Id. (citations omitted). Here, Ms. Moore established that she (1) was a member of a protected class, the female sex; (2) was qualified for the position of associate editor due to her educational background, including a B.A. in English, her past work as a coal miner, her years of experience as a writer and editor with the UMW Journal, and her awards during her tenure with the UMWA; (3) was rejected for the position, as evidenced by her termination and the approval of Mr. Zon as her replacement prior to her termination, and the failure of the UMWA to rehire her as a result of its June 1994 advertisement; and (4) a substantial factor in her termination was her female sex, as shown by the fact that (a) she was the only female terminated in February 1994, with men who, unlike her situation, had previously been warned of their shortcomings pertaining, inter alia, to incompetency and dishonesty; (b) men less qualified than she were retained and a less qualified male was hired and placed in her position; and (c) officials of the UMWA made negative remarks about female employees who were outspoken. UMWA articulated through Mr. Burton its alleged legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Ms. Moore: the Executive Inn incident. Ms. Moore met her burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the stated justification was a pretext designed to conceal UMWA's sex discrimination. Testimony and documentary evidence introduced by Ms. Moore at trial revealed UMWA had offered varying justifications for her termination. Mr. Burton testified at trial that Ms. Moore was terminated because of her poor judgment in dealing with me and the Executive Inn. According to Mr. Hawthorne, in January 1994, Mr. Burton questioned Ms. Moore's loyalty and judgment as the reasons for wanting to terminate her. However, in his February 10, 1994 memorandum, Mr. Burton informed Ms. Moore that her layoff was attributable to finances and considerations surrounding the overall efficiency of [UMWA's] organization. During his September 1995 deposition, Mr. Burton maintained that union funds were depleted after a strike; income from dues had been lost; and we picked people that we thought we could operate most efficiently without, and [Ms. Moore] fell in that category. At an April 15, 1994 meeting of the CEP board, Cecil Roberts, a vice president of UMWA, declared the union had a long strike and that [Ms. Moore] was one of many who had been terminated. Significantly, trial testimony and record documents reveal that UMWA's search for Ms. Moore's replacement took place prior to February when she received written notice of her termination due to financial reasons. When CEP board members inquired on April 15, 1994, as to whether Ms. Moore's position would be filled, Mr. Roberts said: Well, we're hiring an intern, and denied knowledge of anyone else being hired permanently in the journal. He also asserted there was no problem with Ms. Moore's job performance. Mr. Zon, who was hired on April 18, 1994, at a salary of $40,500, had no experience as a professional photographer, or coal miner, and had not previously written for the UMW Journal. In addition, the men with whom Ms. Moore was terminated were, as the trial court put it, palpably less qualified than Ms. Moore, and Mr. Zon was substantially less qualified. In short, reasonable jurors could reasonably find that Ms. Moore sustained her burden of proof under the DCHRA. The record before us reflects substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that the jury verdict relating to liability was not against the clear weight of the evidence.