Court Opinion

ID: 9368179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 01:00:24.925955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.142236
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40806        Document: 00516633118             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                               February 2, 2023
                                       No. 21-40806                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk

   Ann Wilder,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Stephen F. Austin State University,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 9:20-CV-40

   Before Smith, Barksdale, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         At issue are jury-trial rulings: (1) admitting defendant’s exhibit 6
   (compilation of complaints against plaintiff); (2) admitting evidence
   pertaining to her subsequent employment; (3) excluding evidence of
   complaints against a male professor; and (4) denying plaintiff’s mistrial
   motion. AFFIRMED.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40806     Document: 00516633118          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                   No. 21-40806

                                        I.
          Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) in July 2014 hired Ann
   Wilder, Ph.D., as a tenure-track professor in the Master of Social Work
   program. Informal student complaints against her began as early as that
   October; and, in 2017, six formal harassment complaints were filed by
   students.
          An investigation was conducted by her dean; and, in January 2018, he
   concluded Dr. Wilder violated SFA’s harassment policy, with immediate
   termination recommended to, and accepted by, SFA’s provost. On appeal,
   the discrimination review board (DRB), in May 2018 determined her conduct
   did not rise to harassment.
          While awaiting the outcome of the DRB hearing, Dr. Wilder in March
   2018 learned of alleged pay inequities between her and a similarly-situated
   male professor. She filed a formal complaint with SFA on 19 June 2018,
   claiming sex discrimination based on pay disparity.
          SFA on 24 July 2018 signed a terminal-year contract for Dr. Wilder
   for school-year 2018–19. She was notified of the contract that 8 August,
   subsequently declining it and giving her notice of resignation on 23 August.
   She accepted a position at Carlow University in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, that
   same day.
          Dr. Wilder filed this action in 2020. The claims against SFA were for,
   inter alia, violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. (The parties
   consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 73.) A three-day jury trial—during which Dr. Wilder’s mistrial
   motion was denied—resulted in a verdict for SFA on all claims. Final
   judgment was entered in September 2021, dismissing this action with
   prejudice.

                                        2
Case: 21-40806       Document: 00516633118           Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                      No. 21-40806

                                           II.
            Dr. Wilder challenges three evidentiary rulings and the denial of her
   mistrial motion. We turn first to the evidentiary challenges.
                                           A.
            Preserved challenges to evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of
   discretion. E.g., Caparotta v. Entergy Corp., 168 F.3d 754, 755 (5th Cir. 1999).
   “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an erroneous
   view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.”
   Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Axon Pressure Prod., Inc., 951 F.3d 248, 256
   (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Evidentiary rulings are “subject to the
   harmless error doctrine”; therefore, even if the court abused its discretion,
   “the ruling will be reversed only if it affected the substantial rights of the
   complaining party”. Adams v. Memorial Hermann, 973 F.3d 343, 349 (5th Cir.
   2020) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 103(a); Perez v. Texas Dept.
   of Crim. Just., Inst. Div., 395 F.3d 206, 210 (5th Cir. 2004) (“An erroneous
   evidentiary ruling is reversible error only if the ruling affects a party’s
   substantial rights.”). For the reasons that follow, there was no reversible
   error.
                                           1.
            Dr. Wilder contends SFA’s exhibit 6 (compilation of complaints
   against her) should have been excluded, at least in part, as unfairly prejudicial
   under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. (In addition, and for the first time on
   appeal, she challenges the exhibit as defamatory and in violation of her First
   Amendment rights. And, despite raising a hearsay challenge to that exhibit
   in district court and in her reply brief here, she failed to present that challenge
   in her opening brief. Pursuant to our general rules—subject to exceptions
   which don’t apply here—regarding forfeited and waived claims, we decline
   to address these contentions. E.g., Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393,

                                           3
Case: 21-40806      Document: 00516633118          Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-40806

   397–98 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir.
   2009).)
          SFA asserted in district court the decision to issue Dr. Wilder the
   terminal contract was based on, among other reasons, complaints made
   against her. Dr. Wilder fails to show those contained in exhibit 6 were not
   part of that decision. Accordingly, the court reasonably found the complaints
   were probative to SFA’s defense, and Dr. Wilder does not show any
   prejudice resulting from admission was unfair, nor that it substantially
   outweighed the exhibit’s probative value.        See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
   Therefore, the Rule 403 balancing test favored admission. E.g., Wellogix, Inc.
   v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 882 (5th Cir. 2013).
                                          2.
          Dr. Wilder claims evidence regarding her termination from her
   subsequent position at Carlow University was, again, unduly prejudicial
   under Rule 403. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. After hearing the parties’
   positions and reasonably assessing the evidence, the court allowed limited
   testimony about Dr. Wilder’s belief regarding discrimination against her at
   Carlow University for the purpose of inquiring about the bases for her
   claimed emotional-distress damages in this action.
          Her mental state at her subsequent place of employment in the year
   following her termination from SFA was relevant to the compensatory
   damages for emotional distress she sought from SFA; and, pursuant to the
   above discussed standard, she fails to show the probative value of the limited
   testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
   Alternatively, even assuming error, and pursuant to the earlier described
   harmless-error standard, it did not affect her substantial rights.

                                          4
Case: 21-40806      Document: 00516633118          Page: 5    Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-40806

                                          3.
          For her final evidentiary issue, Dr. Wilder contests the exclusion of
   evidence of complaints against a male colleague and of the subsequent lack of
   investigation of them by SFA. The court conducted a “fact-intensive,
   context-specific inquiry” and concluded this evidence was irrelevant and its
   admission would confuse the issues. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn,
   552 U.S. 379, 388 (2008). There was no abuse of discretion.
                                         B.
          Denial of a mistrial motion is also reviewed for abuse of discretion.
   E.g., Zamora v. City of Hous., 798 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir. 2015). “The
   decision to declare a mistrial is left to the sound discretion of the judge, and
   granting a mistrial is appropriate when there is a high degree of necessity.”
   Id. at 337 (citation omitted). Because “the trial judge is in the best position
   to evaluate accurately the potential impact” of improper intrusion of
   extrinsic evidence on the jury, our court “should accord great weight to the
   trial court’s finding that the evidence in no way interfered with any juror’s
   decision”. Id. (citation omitted).
          Ten days before trial, SFA disclosed, for the first time, two documents
   relevant to the timeline forming the basis of Dr. Wilder’s retaliation claims.
   (She maintains the decision to issue her terminal contract occurred after she
   filed her formal complaint on 19 June 2018; as noted, she claimed sex
   discrimination based on pay disparity.) The court in a 13 August 2021 order
   granted Dr. Wilder’s motion to exclude this evidence: “SFA may not
   introduce these documents into evidence or allude to their existence”; and
   “SFA must instruct its witnesses that they cannot testify that the decision to
   offer Dr. Wilder a terminal contract was made on June 6, 2018, or any other
   specific date prior to June 19, 2018”. (Emphasis in original.) As noted, 19

                                          5
Case: 21-40806        Document: 00516633118        Page: 6   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-40806

   June was the date she filed her complaint against SFA; it signed the terminal
   contract on 24 July; and it was offered to Dr. Wilder on 8 August.
          Dr. Wilder maintains: two witnesses testified about when the
   terminal-contract-offer decision was made; and SFA discussed that decision
   in closing argument. After SFA completed closing argument and before her
   rebuttal, she moved orally for a mistrial (she had not objected to the
   witnesses’ challenged testimony, however, and did not mention that
   testimony in her motion; she only addressed SFA’s closing argument). The
   motion was denied summarily.
          Even assuming SFA violated the order, the limited amount of
   prejudicial information was not so “pronounced and persistent that it
   permeate[d] the entire proceeding”. Winter v. Brenner Tank, Inc., 926 F.2d
   468, 473 (5th Cir. 1991).   There was no abuse of discretion. E.g., Zamora,
   798 F.3d at 337.
                                        III.
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         6