Opinion ID: 76226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction and Interrogatory

Text: 33 Appellants argue it was error for the district court to refuse to give their requested jury instruction and interrogatory on their mixed-motive defense. The proposed instruction stated: 34 Even if you find that the Plaintiffs' race and sex played a role in the Defendants' decision to include them in the May 25, 2000 reorganization, Defendants cannot be held liable if they show that the same decision would have been made even in the absence of the impermissible criterion. Thus, if you find that the Defendants would have included Plaintiffs in the May 25, 2000 reorganization, without any consideration of their race or sex, then the Defendants cannot be held liable. 35 Appellants' proposed interrogatory asked the jury whether the Plaintiffs would have been included in the May 25, 2000 reorganization even in the absence of the [Defendant's] consideration of the Plaintiffs' race? 36 A refusal to give a requested jury instruction is erroneous only if (1) the requested instruction correctly stated the law, (2) the instruction dealt with an issue properly before the jury, and (3) the failure to give the instruction resulted in prejudicial harm to the requesting party. Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Hardaway Co., 152 F.3d 1283, 1295 (11th Cir.1998); see also Wood v. President and Trustees of Spring Hill Coll., 978 F.2d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir.1992) (In considering the failure of the district court to give a requested instruction, the omission is error only if the requested instruction is correct, not adequately covered by the charge given, and involves a point so important that failure to give the instruction seriously impaired the party's ability to present an effective case.). We have recently explained: 37 This Court applies a deferential standard of review to a trial court's jury instructions. If the trial judge's instructions accurately reflect the law, he or she is given wide discretion as to the style and wording employed in its instruction. Further, under this standard, we examine whether the jury charges, considered as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury so that the jurors understood the issues and were not misled. 38 McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Cir.2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 39 We employ the same deferential standard of review to the district court's special interrogatory verdict form. See Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir.2002). With regard to omitted jury interrogatories, we have stated: 40 [F]ailure to give requested jury interrogatories may not be error, or if error may be harmless, where the jury verdict itself, viewed in the light of the jury instructions, and any interrogatories that were answered by the jury, indicate without doubt what the answers to the refused interrogatories would have been, or make the answers to the refused interrogatories irrelevant.... 41 Id. at 1318. 42 The Librarians offer several reasons why the district court properly rejected Appellants' proposed jury instruction and interrogatory. 7 The Librarians also argue the district court's proximate cause instruction and interrogatory cured any potential error in not giving the requested mixed-motive instruction and interrogatory. 43 The district court's proximate cause instruction stated the Librarians must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellants' acts of discrimination were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the [Librarians]. The instructions explained, For damages to be the proximate or legal result of wrongful conduct, it must be shown that, except for such conduct, the damages would not have occurred. The district court's special interrogatory asked the jurors whether each Appellant's acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by each Librarian. The jury answered yes to this question as to each Appellant and each Librarian. 44 The jury's answer to the proximate cause interrogatory in effect means that, except for discrimination, the Librarians would not have been transferred. This finding precludes Appellants' mixed-motive defense, which rests on the jury finding, irrespective of discrimination, the Librarians would have been transferred for race-neutral reasons. The proximate cause instruction adequately instructed the jury not to find for the Librarians if they believed the Librarians would have been transferred irrespective of race. If the jury had believed this, they would have answered the proximate cause interrogatory in the negative. However, the jury's affirmative answer to the proximate cause interrogatory indicates, without doubt, what the answer to the mixed-motive interrogatory would have been. Thus, there was no error in refusing to give Appellants' instruction and interrogatory, or if there were error, it would be harmless. See Johnson, 280 F.3d at 1318. 8