Court Opinion

ID: 9825725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:00:56.854356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:06.859001
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11667    Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11667
                          ____________________

       DENNIS MCLAIN,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-01283-WFJ-CPT
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-11667      Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11667

       PER CURIAM:
              Dennis McLain appeals from a jury verdict for the Secretary
       of Veterans Affairs and against McLain on his claims of retaliation
       and hostile work environment under Title VII. McLain claimed he
       was retaliated against and subjected to a hostile work environment
       by the VA hospital where he worked as a nurse because he engaged
       in protected activity as a representative of the nurse’s union.
              After a trial, the jury found for the Secretary on both counts.
       On a special verdict form, the jury found that McLain was not
       “treated differently[] because of his protected EEO activity and pro-
       tected activity played [no] part in the way one or more personnel
       actions were made.” Likewise, the jury found that the Secretary did
       not “harass [McLain] because of his protected EEO activity.”
               On appeal, McLain raises three arguments. First, he argues
       that the district court’s jury instructions misstated the law of cau-
       sation under Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020) and Babb v. Secre-
       tary, 992 F.3d 1193 (2021). Specifically, he argues that the district
       court’s instructions erroneously placed the burden on him to estab-
       lish more than the mere presence of discriminatory considerations
       in his employer’s decision-making process. Second, he argues the
       district court erred in its hostile work environment instruction.
       Third, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in al-
       lowing the Secretary to admit certain evidence for the jury’s con-
       sideration.
             We will not disturb a jury’s verdict for an instructional or
       evidentiary error unless it affected the outcome of the proceedings.
USCA11 Case: 22-11667      Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-11667               Opinion of the Court                         3

       See Watkins v. City of Montgomery, Ala., 775 F.3d 1280, 1289-90 (11th
       Cir. 2014); Burchfield v. CSH Transp., Inc., 636 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th
       Cir. 2011). After careful consideration of the record and the parties’
       briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no prejudicial
       error in the district court’s jury instructions or evidentiary rul-
       ings. Accordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.