Court Opinion

ID: 9474071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:47:17.362568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:53.356537
License: Public Domain

SETH, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree that the judgment n.o.v. herein granted by the trial court must be set aside. However, I must add some comments as to the treatment of the order of proof aspect of the trial.
In my view, when a case such as this reaches us on a judgment n.o.v. ruling, or generally after a trial, the order of proof for trial suggested in Burdine and McDonnell Douglas has lost its significance. The desired proof was here submitted by the parties and the trial was completed. The appeal then comes to us as it does in all cases. The fact that it is an age discrimination case should make no difference. There is a typical order of proof applicable to all cases, and it is no more than that — a sequence for the submission of proof at trial for an orderly and understandable presentation as provided in the rules and by practice. It is to be controlled by the trial judge within the scope of his discretion. The basic requirement to be met is to permit a full and fair presentation of the evidence, this we held in Nulf v. International Paper Co., 656 F.2d 553 (10th Cir.).
The Supreme Court says it has not formulated a rigid order of proof in discrimination cases. A ritual has not been so created. The Court in U.S. Postal Service Board v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1481, of this said:
“The prima facie case method established in McDonnell Douglas [Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668] was 'never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic. Rather, it is merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination.’ Furnco [Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 57 L.Ed.2d 957], at 577 [98 S.Ct. at 2949].”
The ultimate question of discrimination was here reached, and at the end of this trial the order of proof there followed had fulfilled its purpose in the presentation of evidence. The parties had a fair and full opportunity to put on their cases and on this appeal the order of proof need not concern us. The application of standards for judgments n.o.v. generally should be applied. There is no basis for a different *1005application of such doctrines to Title VII cases.
This, in my view, is what the Supreme Court is saying in U.S. Postal Service Board v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1481:
“Because this case was fully tried on the merits, it is surprising to find the parties and the Court of Appeals still addressing the question whether Aikens made out a prima facie case. We think that by framing the issue in these terms, they have unnecessarily evaded the ultimate question of discrimination vel non.”
We have considered the order of proof in Title VII cases as related to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in several opinions. We have decided that it is necessarily a flexible matter for the determination of the trial court. See Nulf v. International Paper Co., 656 F.2d 553 (10th Cir.), and Kentroti v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 585 F.2d 967 (10th Cir.). The Rule 41(b) motions are often the most direct challenge to the order of proof.
In E.E.O.C. v. Samsonite Corp., 723 F.2d 748 (10th Cir.), we quoted at some length from U.S. Postal Service Board v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 103 S.Ct. 1478, and discussed this point. Consideration should again be given to the following quotation from Aikens relating to both trial and appellate courts. After mention of the difficulties presented by the ultimate fact question, the Court there said:
“But none of this means that trial courts or reviewing courts should treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact. Nor should they make their inquiry even more difficult by applying legal rules which were devised to govern ‘the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof,’ [Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v.] Burdine, 450 U.S. [248], at 252 [101 S.Ct. at 1093], in deciding this ultimate question.”
With these comments as to ritual I concur in the conclusion that this case must be reversed because the general standards for judgments n.o.v. were not applied.