883 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1989), 88-2370, City of Omaha Employees Betterment Ass'n v. City of Omaha

Docket Nº:88-2370, 88-2408.
Citation:883 F.2d 650
Party Name:CITY OF OMAHA EMPLOYEES BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION; Robert Choate; Carol Worley; Avis Linstrom, Appellee, Sylvia Love and Sandra Hatfield v. CITY OF OMAHA AFSCME Local 251; a labor union and Ed Cox, President, and City Labor Relations Director, all officially and individually, Appellants. Richard LEUCK v. The CITY OF OMAHA, its managers and employees;
Case Date:August 28, 1989
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 650

883 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1989)

CITY OF OMAHA EMPLOYEES BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION; Robert

Choate; Carol Worley;

Avis Linstrom, Appellee,

Sylvia Love and Sandra Hatfield

v.

CITY OF OMAHA

AFSCME Local 251; a labor union and Ed Cox, President, and

City Labor Relations Director, all officially and

individually, Appellants.

Richard LEUCK

v.

The CITY OF OMAHA, its managers and employees; and AFSCME

Local 251, its officers and members.

CITY OF OMAHA EMPLOYEES BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION; Robert

Choate, Appellants,

Carol Worley,

Avis Linstrom; Sylvia Love, Appellants,

and Sandra Hatfield

v.

CITY OF OMAHA,

AFSCME Local 251; a labor union and Ed Cox, President, Appellee,

and City Labor Relations Director, all officially and individually.

Richard LEUCK

v.

The CITY OF OMAHA, its managers and employees; and AFSCME

Local 251, its officers and members.

Nos. 88-2370, 88-2408.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

August 28, 1989

Submitted May 10, 1989.

Page 651

Thomas F. Dowd, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Steven Lefler, Omaha, Neb., for appellee.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, MARKEY, [*] Chief Judge, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

In the principal case, No. 88-2370, AFSCME Local 251 and its president, Ed Cox, 1 appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in favor of plaintiff-appellee Linstrom on her 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 claim alleging that the City of Omaha and the city employees' union conspired to deny her a promotion because of her sex. The original lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Avis Linstrom and three others alleging civil rights violations by the City and the Union. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City and against the other three plaintiffs on all of their causes of action. The jury found against Linstrom on her claims that she had been discriminated against for dating a black man and having a child by him, and for exercising her first amendment rights in criticizing the Union. However, the jury found in Linstrom's favor on her 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) claim that the Union and City conspired to deny her a promotion based upon her sex. The district court denied the Union's motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Union appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that it conspired with the City to deprive Linstrom of her civil rights. We agree, and accordingly we reverse.

We begin by identifying our standard of review. The same standards apply to the granting of judgment n.o.v. and a directed verdict. Armstrong v. Republic Realty Mortgage Corp., 631 F.2d 1344, 1351 (8th Cir.1980). "[W]e must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the jury." Pumps & Power Co. v. Southern States Industries, 787 F.2d 1252, 1258 (8th Cir.1986). This means that we

(1) resolve direct factual conflicts in favor of the nonmovant, (2) assume as true all facts supporting the nonmovant which the evidence tended to prove, (3) give the nonmovant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and (4) deny the motion if the evidence so viewed would allow reasonable jurors to differ as to the conclusions that could be drawn.

Id., (quoting Jones v...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP