Introduction

In a non-precedential summary order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a post-trial judgment entered after a mixed jury verdict in litigation between pro se appellant (on appeal) Mehmet Emin Tatas and his former employer, Ali Baba’s Terrace Inc. (ABT), its owner Ali Riza Dogan, and two former co-workers. The jury had found for Tatas on his assault and battery claim against Dogan but otherwise found for defendants on his discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and parallel state and local law. On appeal, Tatas challenged a range of evidentiary rulings, the jury instructions, and the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.

The Second Circuit’s decision reaffirms three core appellate tenets:

• Strict preservation rules govern sufficiency challenges—without a timely Rule 50 motion, appellate review is limited to preventing manifest injustice.
• Challenges to jury instructions must be raised at trial; absent objection, only plain error will suffice to overturn a verdict.
• District courts’ discretionary evidentiary calls, particularly under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, will be upheld unless they affect substantial rights.

While the order carries no precedential effect, it offers practical guidance for trial and appellate strategy, especially for employment discrimination litigants and their counsel.

Summary of the Opinion

The panel (Judges Cabranes, Park, and Menashi) affirmed the district court’s judgment. It rejected Tatas’s challenges to:

• Evidentiary rulings excluding certain documents and testimony and allowing selected credibility-related questioning (including about Tatas’s immigration history).
• Jury instructions (including requests for additional instructions about corporate liability for assault, individual liability on federal claims, pretext, and front pay).
• The weight and sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury’s verdict on the § 1981 claims.

The court held that:

• No abuse of discretion occurred in the evidentiary rulings; exclusions were properly justified under Rule 403, and alleged witness intimidation did not affect substantial rights.
• Instructional challenges were forfeited where not timely raised, not necessary given the verdict form, or foreclosed by the parties’ agreements (front pay).
• Sufficiency review was unavailable because Tatas did not move for judgment as a matter of law; no manifest injustice was shown given conflicting testimony and credibility determinations reserved to the jury.

The court also denied Tatas’s motions to reverse the jury verdict and to supplement his appendix.

Disposition: Affirmed.

Note on precedential effect: This is a summary order under FRAP 32.1 and Local Rule 32.1.1; it is citable but not precedential.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Marcic v. Reinauer Transportation Cos., 397 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2005): The panel invoked Marcic for the abuse-of-discretion standard governing evidentiary rulings and the requirement that any error must affect substantial rights to warrant reversal. This standard shaped the court’s deference to the district judge’s Rule 403 balancing (excluding testimony about a DOL employee’s advice; limiting third-party discrimination evidence; asymmetry in immigration-related questioning).
• Fed. R. Evid. 403: Central to the panel’s affirmation of exclusions that were deemed more prejudicial than probative, especially where testimony risked confusing the jury (e.g., why a DOL employee would advise recording conversations) or lacked probative relation to elements of Tatas’s claims (e.g., another witness’s sexual-orientation discrimination allegations).
• Warren v. Pataki, 823 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2016): Supplied the framework for reviewing jury-instruction challenges de novo but with reversal only for prejudicial error, alongside rules on forfeiture (failure to object) and the narrow plain-error exception.
• Schwartz v. Capital Liquidators, Inc., 984 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1993): Confirmed that “weight of the evidence” is a matter for argument to the jury, not a ground for appellate reversal—a key constraint on post-verdict appeals that seek to relitigate factual disputes tried to a jury.
• Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998): Established that sufficiency challenges are unavailable on appeal absent a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50). Tatas’s failure to move for JMOL foreclosed ordinary sufficiency review.
• Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 170 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999): Articulated the narrow “manifest injustice” safety valve—appellate intervention despite lack of preservation only where a verdict is wholly without legal support. The panel found no such injustice here.
• Sorlucco v. New York City Police Department, 971 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) and United States v. Landau, 155 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1998): Reiterated that credibility determinations are the province of the jury and receive deference on appeal—crucial given the conflicting accounts of altercations and workplace conduct.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Evidentiary Rulings (Abuse of Discretion; Rule 403)

The court upheld several evidentiary rulings:

• Documentary evidence: The appellant did not identify record citations showing the district court barred admission of discovery documents; appellees asserted plaintiff’s counsel never sought their admission. Without a concrete ruling and an offer of proof, there was no abuse or prejudice.
• Testimony about DOL advice: Excluded under Rule 403 because it risked confusing the jury (why a DOL official would counsel recording conversations) and was unnecessary to complete Tatas’s testimony. The panel credited the district court’s balancing of probative value against prejudice/confusion.
• Immigration-related questioning: The court approved an asymmetrical approach: questions about Subakan’s immigration status were excluded as irrelevant to why he moved out of Tatas’s apartment, while questions about Tatas’s immigration history were permitted as bearing on credibility. The distinction turned on relevance and probative value, not on a blanket rule.
• “Me-too” evidence: The district court excluded proposed testimony by witness Eyyup Dogan about his own sexual-orientation discrimination because it was insufficiently related to Tatas’s alleged race/national origin discrimination and lacked probative value on Tatas’s claims. The panel agreed the risk of prejudice outweighed probative value under Rule 403.
• Witness intimidation and courtroom management: Although counsel reported a phone call from Dogan that allegedly frightened witness Eyyup, the witness returned and testified a second day; the record showed no in-court intimidation and no effect on testimony from Dogan’s seating position. Absent an impact on substantial rights, no reversible error existed.

2. Jury Instructions (De Novo Review; Forfeiture and Plain Error)

The panel treated instruction challenges de novo but applied forfeiture and plain-error rules:

• Corporate liability for assault: Tatas failed to preserve a request to allow the jury to consider ABT’s liability for assault. With no objection at trial and no plain error apparent, the claim failed.
• Individual liability instructions: Although the appellant sought instructions clarifying individual liability for hostile work environment and retaliation, the verdict form itself allowed findings against individual defendants on those claims, making additional instructions unnecessary.
• Pretext instruction: Counsel confirmed being “good” with the instructions, forfeiting any complaint about the absence of a pretext instruction. No plain error was shown in the charge as a whole.
• Front pay: The parties agreed that front pay would not be presented to the jury. Consistent with common practice in employment cases, front pay is often treated as an equitable remedy for the court, underscoring why the issue did not reach the jury here.

3. Weight and Sufficiency of the Evidence (Preservation; Manifest Injustice)

The court drew a sharp line between permissible jury arguments and appellate grounds:

• Weight of the evidence: This is for the jury and does not justify appellate reversal.
• Sufficiency: Because Tatas did not move for judgment as a matter of law, the panel could not conduct ordinary sufficiency review. The court examined the record only to ensure the verdict was not “wholly without legal support.”
• Result: Conflicting testimony on the knife incident, alleged terroristic comments, and physical altercations meant that credibility determinations were for the jury. The verdict did not produce manifest injustice.

C. Impact and Practical Implications

Although non-precedential, the order carries important practice lessons:

• Preserve sufficiency arguments with Rule 50 motions: Litigants who intend to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence must move for JMOL under Rule 50(a) and (if necessary) renew under Rule 50(b). Without it, review shrinks to the “manifest injustice” backstop.
• Object to the jury charge under Rule 51: Specific, timely objections to instructions are essential. Affirmative assent to the charge, or failure to propose necessary instructions, will result in forfeiture—and plain error is a steep hill to climb.
• Use offers of proof and create a record: When evidence is excluded, ensure a clear proffer (what the evidence is, why it is admissible, and its relevance). Absent a record, appellate courts will not find abuse of discretion.
• Rule 403 is powerful—and deferential on appeal: Courts can exclude marginally relevant, confusing, or prejudicial evidence (e.g., agency advice, loosely connected “me-too” accounts) and allow narrowly tailored credibility inquiries (e.g., immigration background) where probative value is significant.
• Verdict forms matter: Even where jury instructions are brief, a well-constructed verdict form can adequately present liability theories—blunting post hoc claims of instructional error.
• Witness management requires showing prejudice: Allegations of intimidation or courtroom layout issues must be tied to an effect on testimony or substantial rights to warrant relief.

For employment discrimination litigants under § 1981 and related laws, the decision underscores the central role of trial advocacy and evidentiary scaffolding: how disputes are framed, what the jury sees and hears, and whether counsel preserves objections will often be outcome-determinative on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Abuse of discretion: A deferential standard. The appellate court asks whether the trial judge made a reasonable decision within the permissible range. It is not enough to show the appellate court would have decided differently; the decision must be outside the bounds of reason or based on legal error.
• Federal Rule of Evidence 403: Allows a court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks like unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time.
• Jury-instruction error and plain error: Parties must object to instructions at trial. Without an objection, an appellate court will reverse only for “plain error”—an obvious error affecting substantial rights and going to the case’s core fairness.
• Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law (JMOL): A trial motion asserting no reasonable jury could find for the other side on a claim or issue. Filing this motion (and renewing after a verdict) preserves the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
• Manifest injustice: An extraordinary safety valve allowing reversal only if the jury’s verdict lacks any legal support—an extremely high bar.
• “Me-too” evidence: Evidence of discrimination against others at the workplace. Admissibility depends on similarity and connection to the plaintiff’s claims; dissimilar incidents (different protected class or context) are often excluded under Rule 403.
• Front pay: Compensation for future lost earnings when reinstatement is not feasible. Frequently treated as an equitable remedy decided by the judge rather than the jury, and often governed by party agreement on presentation.
• Credibility determinations: Evaluations of who to believe. Juries decide credibility; appellate courts rarely disturb those determinations.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit’s summary order in Tatas v. Ali Baba’s Terrace Inc. is a textbook application of preservation and standard-of-review principles. The appellant’s failure to move for judgment as a matter of law foreclosed ordinary sufficiency review; his limited or absent objections to the jury instructions defeated most instructional challenges; and the district court’s reasoned Rule 403 rulings—excluding marginally probative or potentially confusing evidence while permitting targeted credibility inquiries—fell comfortably within its discretion.

For practitioners, the message is clear: protect appellate rights through meticulous trial practice. Make the offers of proof, lodge precise objections to jury charges, move under Rule 50 to preserve sufficiency challenges, and memorialize agreements (such as on front pay) on the record. In jury trials—especially employment discrimination cases reliant on witness credibility—appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or second-guess reasonable trial management absent preserved error and concrete prejudice.

Though non-precedential, this decision reinforces settled doctrine: preservation is paramount; Rule 403 is powerful; and credibility is for the jury.