Mayall v. Peabody Coal Co., 92-1800

• Decision Date: 08 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-1800,92-1800
• Citation: 7 F.3d 570
• Parties: 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,578 Dick MAYALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 570

7 F.3d 570

62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,578

Dick MAYALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-1800.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 12, 1993.

Decided Oct. 5, 1993.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 8, 1993.

John D. Lynn and Michael J. Hoare (argued), Hoare & Associates, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff-appellant.

Allan Goodloe, Jr. and William A. Schmitt (argued), Thompson & Mitchell, Belleville, IL, for defendant-appellee.

Before EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

After a full trial in this age discrimination case, the district court entered judgment against plaintiff-appellant Dick Mayall ("Mayall") in accordance with the jury verdict. Mayall moved for a new trial, challenging both the district court's refusal to correct an alleged misstatement of law by counsel for defendant Peabody Coal Co. ("Peabody") and the jury instructions. The district court denied Mayall's motion for a new trial, and he appeals. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

I.

Mayall was employed as the Manager of Corporate Equipment and Maintenance at Peabody. When Peabody terminated Mayall's employment, he was 66 years old and had 44 years of experience in the mining industry, 20 of which were with Peabody. Despite Mayall's record of excellent performance evaluations, the President of Peabody, Howard Williams ("Williams"), decided to eliminate Mayall's position as part of an effort to cut back operations and reduce costs. During the three years prior to his termination, Mayall was responsible for ensuring that parts suppliers were providing parts that met Peabody's specifications. After determining that the suppliers were furnishing adequate parts, Williams decided to eliminate Mayall's position. Williams did not fill Mayall's former position, nor was it ever his intention to do so. During this period, Peabody was experiencing severe financial difficulties. As a result, Peabody consolidated three of its divisions, eliminating 120 corporate staff positions and also shut down at least 15 mines, laying off several hundred miners.

The Vice President of Materials Management, John Kappler ("Kappler"), testified that he was aware that Mayall had plans to retire at a specific time. Therefore, he requested that Williams provide Mayall with a consulting package in order that Mayall could continue to work until that time. Williams agreed to do so, but Mayall did not accept the agreement, saying that he did not want to retire and that he needed additional time to review the consulting agreement with his attorney. Peabody subsequently contacted Mayall several times regarding the agreement. Finally, after the consulting offer had been open for approximately six weeks, Peabody revoked the offer. Two days later, Mayall was terminated.

Walter Lueking ("Lueking") was formerly the Materials Manager for Peabody's Illinois Division. When that position was eliminated during Peabody's cost-cutting period, he was not terminated. Instead, he obtained a position in the Material Management Department at Peabody's corporate headquarters. Kappler requested that Mayall take Lueking on supplier inspections so that Lueking could learn from him. Mayall did so. Later, however, Williams instructed Kappler that he did not want anyone performing supplier inspections because that function had been abolished. Furthermore, Lueking testified that he did not perform these inspections after Mayall left Peabody's employ.

Mayall sued Peabody, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Mayall's suit was primarily based on his contention that Lueking, who was 53 years of age, had received better treatment than Mayall during the company cutbacks and that Lueking served as a replacement for him. After a full trial the jury found in favor of Peabody. Mayall moved for a new trial, but his motion was denied by the district court. On appeal, Mayall argues he should have been granted a new trial, because the district court erred when it: (1) refused to correct a misstatement of law by Peabody's counsel during closing argument, (2) submitted to the jury an instruction that placed a heavier burden on Mayall than was warranted by law, and (3) refused to define the phrase "a determining factor" in the jury instructions.

II.

Mayall asserts that his motion for a new trial should have been granted because of alleged district court errors. We review the grant or denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Cygnar v. Chicago, 865 F.2d 827, 835 (7th Cir.1989). Mindful of this standard, we address Mayall's specific contentions.

A. The Closing Argument

Mayall argues that the district court erred when it refused to grant a new trial on the basis of an alleged misstatement of the law by Peabody's counsel during his closing argument. That statement is as follows:

It is unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee who is 40 years or older because of his age. Tell me who did you hear about in this case under 40 that received any different treatment from Mr. Mayall? Nobody. Now if that is the law, then we have to discriminate against him and treat him differently than people under 40.

(Tr. 276.) Mayall's counsel timely objected to this statement, asserting that it misstates the law. The district court overruled the objection. ¹

We first consider whether this statement misstates the law. Mayall bases his assertion on this Circuit's recognition that "an employer is not insulated from liability for age discrimination when he chooses among people in the protected class." La Montagne v. American Convenience Products, Inc., 750 F.2d 1405, 1411 n. 4 (7th Cir.1984). ² However, the alleged misstatement, especially when considered as part of the closing arguments in their entirety, is not clearly at odds with La Montagne. Peabody presented evidence at trial indicating that many individuals under 40 lost their jobs in the Material Management Department during the consolidation period. Consequently, these individuals were in positions similar to Mayall with respect to Lueking. Peabody's statement may have been an attempt to respond to Mayall's effort to focus the jury's attention on the fact that Lueking was retained while Mayall was not. For this reason, we defer to the district court's finding that "[t]here is nothing about this statement that would be in any way prejudicial to the plaintiff." (R. 38 at 2-3.)

Even if the statement had been in error, it does not warrant reversal, as "improper comments during closing argument rarely rise to the level of reversible error." Probus v. K-Mart, Inc., 794 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir.1986). "Improper statements during closing arguments warrant reversal only if they 'influenced the jury in such a way that substantial prejudice resulted to' the opposing party." Arcor, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 960 F.2d 710, 713 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting Fenolio v. Smith, 802 F.2d 256, 258 (7th Cir.1986)). First, this statement did not result in substantial prejudice to Mayall because the overall evidence in favor of Peabody was overwhelming. Peabody was in the process of consolidating three of its divisions and shutting down 15 mines, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs. Furthermore, Williams testified that the supplier inspections that Mayall had been conducting were no longer necessary and were not performed after Mayall left. Williams' testimony was corroborated by Lueking's testimony that he did not perform these inspections after Mayall's termination.

Any potential prejudice to Mayall was also lessened substantially by the fact that the jury was instructed that it was their duty to apply the law contained in the instructions and that arguments, statements and remarks of counsel were not evidence. Instructions of this sort are helpful in curing potentially improper remarks. See, e.g., United States v. Dominguez, 835 F.2d 694, 700 (7th Cir.1987); Probus, 794 F.2d at 1211. Finally, at the end of the interchange in which the alleged misstatement was made, Peabody's counsel himself reminded the jury to read the instructions themselves. For these reasons, the district court committed no reversible error and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on this basis.

B. The Jury Instruction

Mayall also makes two objections to one of the jury instructions. ³ Our review of jury instructions is limited, seeking "only to determine if 'the instructions as a whole were sufficient to inform the jury correctly of the applicable law.' " Patel v. Gayes, 984 F.2d 214, 219 (7th Cir.1993). We construe jury instructions "in their entirety and not in artificial isolation" and reverse only when "the jury's comprehension of the issues is so misguided that a litigant is prejudiced." Goldman v. Fadell, 844 F.2d 1297, 1302 (7th Cir.1988).

Mayall's first objection is that this jury instruction placed an unwarranted burden on him because it required him to prove that his age "was a determining factor in the defendant's decision to discharge him," but still allowed Peabody to escape liability by proving that "plaintiff's employment would have been terminated regardless of his age." Mayall asserts that "a determining factor" is a conclusive causative factor that, once found, made it unnecessary for him to rebut Peabody's affirmative defense. This assertion does not comport with the structure of proof in extant discrimination cases. In Visser v. Packer Engineering Associates, Inc., we applied the following reasoning from Title VII cases to the age discrimination arena: "[O]nce the plaintiff in a civil rights case has shown that a forbidden purpose was a substantial factor in the decision to fire him, the burden shifts to the employer to persuade the court that the plaintiff would have been fired...