Court Opinion

ID: 9450522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:50:59.951929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:21.923546
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In the prior appeal before this court, we held that (1) if plaintiff had a contract of employment with defendant for a fixed and definite term embracing the ninety-day period ending September 20, 1959, and (2) if his discharge was without just cause and for the purpose of depriving him of the right to exercise his stock purchase option, defendant would be liable for damages (stipulated to be $34,000) occasioned thereby. 324 F.2d 205, 208. At 209, we held that *570under the law the first question presented a genuine issue of material fact. On remand, the jury, by special interrogatory, determined that question in favor of plaintiff, and returned a verdict of $34,000.
The determination of the issues of fact was for the jury and the court below invaded the jury’s exclusive province to decide the factual questions. The evidence does not warrant such invasion. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it is obvious that defendant sought to deprive plaintiff of a very lucrative stock purchase option shortly before his right thereto was to mature.
I would remand this case to the district court with directions that it vacate its order granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reinstate the verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff and enter judgment thereon.