Doss v. Frontenac, 93-1108

• Decision Date: 02 February 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1108,93-1108
• Parties: 63 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1274, 63 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,827 Willie DOSS, Appellant, v. Mace Rich FRONTENAC, doing business as Plaza Frontenac Associates, L.P., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1313

14 F.3d 1313

63 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1274,

63 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,827

Willie DOSS, Appellant, v. Mace Rich FRONTENAC, doing business as Plaza Frontenac

Associates, L.P., Appellee.

No. 93-1108.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 9, 1993.

Decided Feb. 2, 1994.

Jay L. Kanzler, Jr., St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellant.

Robert J. Krehbiel, St. Louis, MO, argued (Joy R. Urbom, on the brief), for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Willie Doss appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court ¹ for the Eastern District of Missouri, upon a jury verdict, finding that his employer, Mace Rich Frontenac (Frontenac), did not discharge him on the basis of his race in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 213.010 et seq. (1986) (MHRA), and, upon a bench trial, finding that Frontenac did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. (Title VII). Doss v. Mace Rich Frontenac, Civ. No. 91-2024C(5) (E.D.Mo. Dec. 17, 1992). For reversal, Doss argues that the district court (1) erred in permitting Frontenac to use its peremptory challenges to strike African-American venirepersons, (2) abused its discretion in excluding exhibits relating to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) investigation of Doss' complaint, and (3) erred in denying Doss' motion for a new trial because the jury's finding that Frontenac did not discriminate against Doss is not supported by sufficient evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1990, Doss, an African-American, was employed as a housekeeper at Plaza Frontenac Mall, owned by Frontenac. Doss' supervisor was Dave Freeburg, a Caucasian. The housekeeping department consisted of six African-American males and one Caucasian male, James Oellermann. On November 16, 1990, Doss was treated for an injury to the heels of both his feet and obtained a note from his physician stating that he was not able to perform heavy lifting. On November 17, 1990, Doss was asked by a coworker to help raise a large, heavy Christmas tree up to the second floor of the mall. Doss refused. On November 23, 1990, Freeburg terminated Doss.

Doss filed suit in federal district court against Frontenac under Title VII and the MHRA, alleging that his discharge was the result of race discrimination. Doss claimed discrimination based on a theory of disparate treatment arguing that he was treated less favorably than his Caucasian coworker Oellermann who also suffered from a medical condition affecting his ability to move heavy items. After the MHRA claim was tried to a jury, a verdict was returned in favor of Frontenac. Because the parties agreed that the facts presented to the jury on the MHRA claim were the same facts supporting the Title VII claim, the district court held that it was collaterally estopped from finding against the defendant with respect to the Title VII claim. Accordingly, the district court entered judgment in favor of Frontenac on both claims.

The district court denied Doss' motion for a new trial and this appeal followed. On appeal, Doss contends that a new trial is warranted because Frontenac impermissibly used its two peremptory challenges to strike African-American venirepersons, the district court abused its discretion by excluding exhibits relating to an EEOC investigation of Doss' charge, and the jury's verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Batson Issue

Doss first contends the district court erred in permitting Frontenac to use its peremptory challenges to strike African-American venirepersons.

At the conclusion of voir dire on December 7, 1992, each side exercised its two peremptory challenges granted by the district court. Frontenac used one of its peremptory challenges to strike the only African-American venireperson, Carla T. Banks. Doss objected, claiming that Frontenac had used its peremptory challenge to impermissibly strike Banks because of her race. The district afforded Frontenac the opportunity to articulate a race-neutral reason for the peremptory challenge. Frontenac explained that the basis for its challenge was that Banks did not raise her hand when the jury panel was asked if any member of the panel had ever experienced discrimination based on race or religion. Frontenac reasoned that "in this day and age, with discrimination based on race being as pervasive as it is, it's just incredible to me that this lady has never ever in her life been confronted with any racial discrimination." [Tr. mistrial, pp. 42-44.] The district court found that Frontenac's reason did not constitute a race-neutral reason for striking Banks and declared a mistrial. [Id., pp. 44-45].

On the following day, a new venire panel composed of eleven prospective jurors was presented, and jury selection commenced for a second time. The venirepersons were questioned about their various employment experiences, including whether they believed they had experienced any form of discrimination during the history of their employment.

The venirepersons responded in the following manner: (1) Mr. Sacks, a Caucasian male, stated that he had filed a civil suit against his employer because he believed he had been discharged for age-related reasons, and that he and his employer eventually settled the matter; (2) Karen May, an African-American female, stated that she had been unfairly terminated while on maternity leave; (3) Carol Lockett, an African-American female, stated that she had been laid off from her employment after an unfair performance evaluation, and that she filed a complaint with an officer at her company, possibly an EEOC officer; (4) Jean Bierman, a Caucasian female, stated that she believed her husband had been unfairly discharged from his employment because of age-related reasons.

At the conclusion of voir dire, the district court announced that the jury would be composed of seven persons, and each side would be allowed two peremptory challenges. The district court then asked whether there were any challenges for cause. Doss had no challenges for cause. Frontenac challenged Lockett for cause, expressing concern over her unfortunate experience with her employer and the fact that she noticeably hesitated before stating that she could be a fair and impartial juror in the case. The district court acknowledged that Lockett "had indeed hesitated before she finally replied that she could be fair," but denied the challenge for cause noting that a peremptory challenge would be more proper. [Voir Dire Tr. pp. 44-45]. The district court then excused Sacks with consent by counsel for both sides because he had a business trip that conflicted with the trial.

Each party then exercised its two peremptory challenges. Frontenac used its challenges to strike Karen May and Carol Lockett. Doss objected to the peremptory strikes of May and Lockett on grounds that Frontenac had impermissibly excused these African-American venirepersons because of their race. The district court afforded Frontenac the opportunity to articulate a race-neutral reason for striking May and Lockett. Frontenac claimed it excused Lockett because of her belief that she had been unfairly evaluated and discharged by her employer coupled with her hesitation when asked whether she could participate as a fair and impartial juror. Frontenac claimed it excused May because she believed she had been unfairly discharged by her employer while on maternity leave. The district court denied Doss' objections finding that "both of the challenges have a sufficient reason that they could not be automatically determined to be something other than racially neutral." [Tr. vol. I, p. 19].

Doss contends the district court erred in overruling his objections because Frontenac's peremptory challenges of May and Lockett violated his equal protection rights. Doss contends that the combination of Frontenac's discriminatory peremptory challenge of Banks during the first voir dire, Frontenac's challenge of Lockett for cause, and its peremptory challenges of May and Lockett during the second voir dire evince a "pattern" of strikes against African-American venirepersons that gives rise to an inference of purposeful discrimination. We disagree.

The Supreme Court has held that race discrimination in the form of exercising peremptory challenges to exclude African-American venirepersons violates a criminal defendant's fourteenth amendment equal protection rights. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (Batson ). In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) (Edmonson ), the Court extended the Batson rationale to civil suits holding that a private litigant in a civil case may not use peremptory challenges to exclude venirepersons because of race.

In order to succeed on a Batson challenge, a party must satisfy a three-part test. 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1722. First, the objecting party must establish a prima facie showing that the venireperson was excluded because of his or her race. Once that party makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the challenging party to offer a race-neutral reason for challenging the minority juror that is "clear and reasonably specific" and related to the case to be tried. Id. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1724. The court must then determine whether the objecting party has proven the ultimate question of intentional discrimination. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1866, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991).

A district court's finding of purposeful discrimination in the jury selection process is a question of fact which we will reverse only if the findings were clearly erroneous. United States v. Dawn, 897 F.2d 1444, 1447 (8th Cir.1990)....