Farrior v. Waterford Board of Education

• Decision Date: 16 October 2001
• Docket Number: DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,Docket No. 01-7049
• Citation: 277 F.3d 633
• Parties: (2nd Cir. 2002) PEGGY FARRIOR,, v. WATERFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION,, TOWN OF WATERFORD, EDMOND CLARK, GEORGE YOST, DAVID CATTANACH, DAVID TITLE, DAVID RUFFNER, RANDALL COLLINS, BETTY BRESSER, SUSAN WHITE, PAUL HAVENER, INEZ CULLEN, FRANCIS SWEENEY AND JUDITH CONSTANTINE, DEFENDANTS. Argued:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 633

277 F.3d 633 (2nd Cir. 2002)

PEGGY FARRIOR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WATERFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, TOWN OF WATERFORD, EDMOND CLARK, GEORGE YOST, DAVID CATTANACH, DAVID TITLE, DAVID RUFFNER, RANDALL COLLINS, BETTY BRESSER, SUSAN WHITE, PAUL HAVENER, INEZ CULLEN, FRANCIS SWEENEY AND JUDITH CONSTANTINE, DEFENDANTS.

Docket No. 01-7049

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Argued: October 16, 2001

Decided January 24, 2002

Plaintiff-appellant Farrior appeals from a grant of a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Alvin W. Thompson, D.J.). After the grant of a new trial, the case was retried and final judgment was entered for the Defendant-Appellee. On appeal, Farrior argues that the trial court applied the wrong standard in determining whether to order a new trial.

Affirmed.

Joseph D. Garrison, Esq., (Jeffrey S. Bagnell, on the brief), Garrison, Phelan, Levin-Epstein, Chimes & Richardson, P.C., New Haven, CT for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael Peter Mckeon, Esq., Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, Llc, Hartford, CT for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: Walker, Chief Judge, Meskill, Circuit Judge, and Koeltl, District Judge.¹

Per Curiam

Following her termination as an executive secretary, plaintiff-appellant Peggy Farrior sued the Waterford Board of Education ("the Board") and a group of individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, among other claims, that the Board had violated her First Amendment rights by discharging her for publicly disclosing misfeasance by her supervisor and by ratifying systematic retaliation against her by her supervisors. Farrior's other claims against the Board were dismissed on summary judgment, as were all of her claims against the individual defendants. Farrior's First Amendment claim was tried to a jury, which found in her favor and awarded $561,474 in damages. The district court then granted the Board's Rule 59 motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. A second jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the Board. Farrior now appeals the district court's grant of a new trial.

A district court's grant of a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Binder v. Long Island Lighting Co., 57 F.3d 193, 201-02 (2d Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Fisher v. Vassar Coll., 114 F.3d 1332 (2d Cir. 1997). A grant of a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is appropriate if "the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or... the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 163 F.3d 124, 133 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether the jury's verdict is so "seriously erroneous" as to justify a new trial, the trial judge is free to weigh the evidence and "need not view it in the light most favorable to the verdict winner." Id. at 134.

Although the district court's opinion as a whole makes it clear that the right standard was applied and thus we can easily affirm the judgment, we write to clarify one passage. The district court's opinion states that a new trial is appropriate "if the jury's verdict is seriously erroneous or constitutes a miscarriage of justice, or the verdict appears... to be against the weight of evidence." Farrior, No. 3:93-1585, slip op. at 3 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That passage could be interpreted as stating that a new trial is appropriate if a) the verdict is seriously erroneous, b) the verdict is a miscarriage of justice, or c) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. That...