Court Opinion

ID: 9949466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 19:01:45.525128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:26.603943
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12878   Document: 50-1    Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12878
                         ____________________

       KENITE WEBB,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA,

                                                Defendant-Appellant,

       CITY OF VENICE POLICE DEPARTMENT

                                                          Defendant.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12878         Document: 50-1        Date Filed: 03/11/2024         Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-12878

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-03045-TPB-TGW
                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Plaintiff Kenite Webb brought hostile work environment
       claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)
       and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”) against the City
       of Venice (“the City”). After a 5-day jury trial, the jury returned a
       $50,000 verdict in favor of Webb. The City filed a motion for
       judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial,
       which the district court denied. On appeal, the City challenges,
       inter alia, the sufficiency and weight of Webb’s evidence, the
       district court’s various evidentiary rulings, and the district court’s
       resubmission of the case to the jury after an inconsistent verdict.
             We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for
       judgment as a matter of law. Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d
       1160, 1173 (11th Cir. 2010). 1 While we review all of the record

       1 We review the district court’s decision on the City’s motion for a new trial

       for abuse of discretion. Jenkins v. Anton, 922 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2019).
       We review the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Cook ex rel. Est. of
       Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., 402 F.3d 1092, 1103 (11th Cir. 2005). We
       review the district court’s response to the inconsistent verdict for abuse of
       discretion. Wilbur v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 393 F.3d 1192, 1199 (11th Cir. 2004).
USCA11 Case: 22-12878       Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 3 of 3

       22-12878                Opinion of the Court                           3

       evidence, we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
       nonmoving party, and may not make credibility determinations or
       weigh the evidence. Id. “We will not second-guess the jury or
       substitute our judgment for its judgment if its verdict is supported
       by sufficient evidence.” EEOC v. Exel, Inc., 884 F.3d 1326, 1329 (11th
       Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted).
               Under Title VII, Webb was required to prove, inter alia, the
       harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms
       and conditions of his employment and create a discriminatorily
       abusive working environment. Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc.,
       277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002). This requires satisfaction of
       both subjective and objective components. Mendoza v. Borden, Inc.,
       195 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Specifically, “[t]he
       employee must ‘subjectively perceive’ the harassment as
       sufficiently severe and pervasive[,] . . . and this subjective
       perception must be objectively reasonable.” Id. This inquiry
       demands consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Id. We
       examine the conduct in its context, “not as isolated acts.” Id.
       Discrimination claims under the FCRA are governed by the same
       standards as Title VII claims and do not require separate analysis.
       Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Devs., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010).
             After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument,
       we find no reversible error in the trial or the district court’s rulings,
       and thus affirm the jury’s verdict and the denial of the City’s
       motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
              AFFIRMED.