Wirtz v. Kansas Farm Bureau Services, Inc., 01-2436-KGS.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-2436-KGS.,01-2436-KGS. |
| Citation | 311 F.Supp.2d 1197 |
| Parties | Thomas WIRTZ, Plaintiff, v. KANSAS FARM BUREAU SERVICES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
David O. Alegria, McCullough, Wareheim & LaBunker, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff.
Deena Hyson Bailey, Teresa L. Mah, Terry L. Mann, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP, Wichita, KS, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
This matter comes before the court upon the motion of defendant Kansas Farm Bureau Services, Inc. ("KFBS") for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 and 59 against the plaintiff, Thomas Wirtz (Wirtz). (Doc. 127). Plaintiff filed his response on October 2, 2003. (Doc. 137). Defendant filed a reply on October 30, 2003. (Doc. 142). For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 is granted in part and denied in part, and defendant's motion for new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 is denied.
On August 29, 2001, the plaintiff filed his complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")1 against the defendant, alleging gender employment discrimination, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, and retaliation. The case was tried before a jury commencing on June 16, 2003. On June 23, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the claim of gender discrimination and in favor of defendant on the claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,000 for emotional pain and suffering, $12,000 in pecuniary damages, and $20,000 in punitive damages. The jury, sitting in an advisory capacity only, declined to award plaintiff any damages for lost wages or lost benefits. On July 23, 2003, the court awarded the plaintiff back pay in the amount of $8,063, with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $1,363. (Doc. 125).
Defendant now seeks to reverse the jury verdict with respect to the finding of gender discrimination and the award of pecuniary and punitive damages, and to reverse or modify the court's award of back pay. In the alternative, defendant seeks a new trial on the issues of reverse gender discrimination and damages.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 502 "may be granted only when, without weighing the credibility of the evidence, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment."3 Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate "only if the proof is all one way or so overwhelmingly preponderant in favor of the movant as to permit no other rational conclusion."4 "Judgment n.o.v. should be cautiously and sparingly granted."5 "In determining whether the grant of a motion for judgment n.o.v. is appropriate, the court must view the evidence and indulge all inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion and cannot weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of witnesses or substitute its judgment for that of the jury."6
At the close of the plaintiff's case and at the close of all the evidence in the trial, defendant moved the court for judgment as a matter of law in its favor. Following the presentation of the parties' arguments, the court denied defendant's motion. Defendant now renews its motion, seeking judgment as a matter of law that (1) the plaintiff failed to present sufficient basis for judgment on the reverse gender discrimination claim, (2) the plaintiff failed to present sufficient basis for judgment on damages as to back pay, pecuniary damages, and costs, and (3) the plaintiff failed to present sufficient basis for judgment on punitive damages.
In assessing defendant's arguments regarding this motion, the court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and must deny the motion unless all the evidence presented at trial so overwhelmingly supports the defendant as to permit no other rational conclusion.
Following the presentation of all the evidence, the jury found that defendant discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of his gender, that being male. Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial does not support this verdict. In support of this argument, defendant claims that the court gave erroneous jury instructions by incorrectly outlining the elements of a reverse gender discrimination claim. Plaintiff cannot, defendant argues, satisfy the correct elements of the reverse gender discrimination. Furthermore, defendant claims that even if the jury instructions used by the court were correct, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to support his claim of reverse gender discrimination.
The court gave the jury the following instructions related to plaintiff's gender discrimination claim:
Your verdict must be for the plaintiff and against defendant on plaintiff's sex discrimination claim if all the following elements have been proved by the preponderance of the evidence:
First, defendant discharged plaintiff; and
Second, plaintiff's gender was a motivating factor in defendant's decision.
If either of the above elements has not been proved by the preponderance of the evidence, your verdict must be for the defendant and you need not proceed further in considering this claim.7
In order for plaintiff to establish a gender discrimination claim against defendant, plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant's actions were motivated by the plaintiff's gender.
Plaintiff must prove that defendant intentionally discriminated against plaintiff, that is, plaintiff's gender must be proven to have been a motivating factor in defendant's decision to terminate plaintiff.
The mere fact that plaintiff is a male and was terminated is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish plaintiff's claim under the law.
In showing that plaintiff's gender was a motivating factor, plaintiff is not required to prove that plaintiff's gender was the sole motivation or even the primary motivation for defendant's decision. Plaintiff need only prove that gender played a motivating part in defendant's decision, even though other factors may also have motivated defendant.
The term "motivating factor" means a consideration that moved defendant toward defendant's decision.8
If you find that the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant engaged in impermissible gender discrimination, you must find in favor of the plaintiff unless the defendant has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for the adverse employment action taken against plaintiff. If defendant has articulated a non-discriminatory explanation for the unfavorable action taken against the plaintiff, then you must find in favor of the defendant unless the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's alleged explanation is merely a pretext for impermissible gender discrimination.
In order to prove that defendant's alleged explanation is a pretext for impermissible gender discrimination, the plaintiff may attempt to prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that his gender more likely motivated defendant's decisions than the reason stated by defendant or the plaintiff may show that the explanation is unworthy of belief.
If you do not believe defendant's explanations, you may, but are not required to, infer that plaintiff has satisfied plaintiff's burden of proof that the defendant's legitimate non-discriminatory reason was merely a pretext for impermissible gender discrimination and you must find in favor of the plaintiff. If plaintiff failed to prove that the explanation is a pretext, you must find in favor of defendant on the gender discrimination claim.9
Defendant argues that the instructions given by the court are appropriate in the case of a common gender discrimination claim. They must, however, be modified to reflect the different standard of proof required of reverse gender discrimination plaintiffs. Defendant claims that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a higher burden of proof for reverse discrimination plaintiffs that requires modification of the common gender discrimination instructions.10
The court will analyze plaintiff's gender discrimination claim under the burden-shifting framework articulated by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.11 Pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas decision, the following three steps are required for evaluating Title VII disparate treatment claims:
First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection." Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.12
When the plaintiff belongs to a minority group, he may establish the prima facie case by showing that "(1) he belongs to a protected class of minority; (2) he was qualified for the job from which he was discharged; (3) he was discharged despite his qualifications; and (4) after the discharge, the position remained open and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shawnee Tribe v. U.S.
... ... Administrator, United States General Services Administration; Stephen A. Perry, Administrator, ... of Interior for Indian Affairs; and The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants-Appellees ... States Attorney, with him on the brief), Kansas City, KS, for Defendants-Appellees ... See Bridger Coal Co./Pac. Minerals, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation ... Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 233 n. 7, 115 S.Ct. 1447, ... ...
-
Shawnee Tribe v. U.S.
... ... Administrator, United States General Services Administration; Stephen A ... Page 1122 ... of Interior for Indian Affairs; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants-Appellees ... States Attorney, with him on the brief), Kansas City, KS, for Defendants-Appellees ... See Bridger Coal Co./Pac. Minerals, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation ... Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 233 n. 7, 115 S.Ct. 1447, ... ...
-
Counterclaim v. Celeritas Technologies Llc.
...it is relevant to the instant motion. 2McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984). 3Wirtz v. Kansas Farm Bureau Servs., Inc., 311 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1226 (D.Kan.2004) (citation omitted). 4Id. 5White v. Conoco, Inc., 710 F.2d 1442, 1443 (1......
-
Foster v. USIC Locating Servs., LLC
...the weight of the evidence, prejudicial error has occurred, or substantial justice has not been done." Wirtz v. Kan. Farm Bur. Servs., Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1226 (D. Kan. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). III. Analysis Defendant moves for ju......
-
Title Vii Is Color Blind: the Law of Reverse Discrimination
...Oklahoma Corp. Com'n, 125 F.3d 1366, 1369 (10th Cir. 1997). 151. Id. at 590. 152. Id. 153. Wirtz v. Kansas Farm Bureau Services Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1207 (D. Kan. 2004). 154. Olson, supra, note 6. 155. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a). ...
-
Post-judgment Day: a Guide to Filing Timely Notices of Appeal in Federal Court
...of the evidence, prejudicial error has occurred, or substantial justice has not been done." Wirtz v. Kan. Farm Bur. Servs. Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1226 (D. Kan. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Relief in the form of an altered or amended judgment may be appropriate......