969 F.2d 1280 (1st Cir. 1992), 90-1790, Desjardins v. Van Buren Community Hosp.

Docket Nº:90-1790.
Citation:969 F.2d 1280
Party Name:Eugene DESJARDINS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. VAN BUREN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendant, Appellant.
Case Date:July 07, 1992
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1280

969 F.2d 1280 (1st Cir. 1992)

Eugene DESJARDINS, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

VAN BUREN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 90-1790.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

July 7, 1992

Heard March 5, 1992.

William J. Smith, Van Buren, Me., for appellant.

Paul F. Macri with whom Berman, Simmons & Goldberg, P.A., Lewiston, Me., Kaighn Smith, Jr., and Tureen & Margolin, Portland, Me., were on brief, for appellee.

Page 1281

Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, WEIS, [*] and BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case stems from the defendant hospital's discharge of plaintiff from his employment. The plaintiff's complaint asserted six claims alleging: count I, violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; count II, violation of the Maine Human Rights Act, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 5, § 4551 et seq.; count III, breach of an employment contract; count IV, wrongful discharge; count V, violation of the Whistle Blowers statute, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 26, § 831 et seq.; and count VI, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The case was tried to a jury which found in favor of plaintiff on all counts except count III, on which a verdict for defendant was returned. The jury awarded plaintiff the sum of $17,967. In post-trial proceedings, the court granted further relief to plaintiff consisting of $5,000 "front pay," attorneys' fees and costs of $15,968.97, and an order directing defendant to make a public apology in a local newspaper. Defendant has appealed, asserting that the conduct of the district judge during the trial was prejudicial and that the order requiring a public apology violates the First Amendment.

I.

The defendant's complaints about the trial judge are directed at his limitation of cross-examination of the plaintiff's wife, his admonitions to the hospital administrator during cross-examination, and his questioning of that witness.

To keep these contentions in perspective, it is important to understand the role of a federal district judge during a trial. Unquestionably, bias and improper conduct by a trial judge may be grounds for a new trial if a party was unfairly prejudiced. Active participation by a district judge in trial proceedings, however, is in itself neither improper nor unfair.

Chief Justice Hughes, writing for a unanimous Court in Quercia v. United States, 289...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP