HAMBY v. TECHMER PM

THOMAS PHILLIPS, Magistrate Judge

Defendant, Techmer PM, LLC (Techmer), has renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and has moved in the alternative for a new trial [Doc. 86]. Plaintiff, Joe M. Hamby (Hamby), has responded in opposition [Doc. 93], to which defendant has replied [Doc. 95]. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.

A review of the evidence presented at trial reveals as follows: Hamby contends that he was conducting an investigation into complaints of "sexual harassment" by Mike Beam (Beam) against Nicole Reynolds (Reynolds). The President and CEO of Techmer, John Manuck (Manuck), expressed anger and claimed the investigation was ridiculous. Techmer asserts it subsequently discharged Beam for submitting his wife's cell phone bill as a company expense after having been told not to do so. According to Hamby, he opposed Beam's discharge on the grounds that the discharge constituted retaliation for Beam's having complained about Reynolds. Manuck subsequently decided that Hamby was not a good fit for the company and fired him.

In its motion, Techmer claims that plaintiff did not participate in protected activity. Alternatively, defendant moves for a new trial on the grounds that it should have been permitted to present evidence regarding Hamby's employment history and previous legal claims, and on the grounds of possible juror misconduct and bias. Defendant asserts exclusion of the evidence prejudiced its defense by preventing it from presenting facts regarding credibility, knowledge, motive, bias and intent.

RULE 50 STANDARD

Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part as follows:

(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.

(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.

. . .

(b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment — and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may:

(1) if a verdict was returned:

(A) allow the judgment to stand,

(B) order a new trial, or

(C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; or

(2) if no verdict was returned;

(A) order a new trial, or

(B) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.

When the specific facts of this case are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court finds sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings. By opposing Beam's termination, a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff was acting in good faith and had an objectively reasonable basis to believe Beam was being retaliated against because he had filed a complaint. The evidence of record further supports the conclusion by the jury that Hamby would be protected against employer retaliation for opposing any practice that the employee reasonably believed to be a violation of Title VII. See Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.2d 561, 579 (6^th Cir. 2000). Indeed, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish that plaintiff's opposition to the termination of Beam was a motivating factor in the decision to fire him. If the purpose of Title VII is to protect access to the machinery available to seek redress for civil rights violations and to protect the machinery's operation once it has been engaged, to allow a human resources employee to be discharged for conducting what he believed to be an objectively reasonable investigation into possible misconduct could be properly perceived by the jury to defeat the objectives of Title VII. Accordingly, the findings of the jury will not be disturbed. NEW TRIAL

Pursuant to Rules 59 and 61 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant a new trial based on action that "appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice." See also Morales v. American Honda Motor Co., 151 F.3d 500, 514 (6^th Cir. 1998) (Courts grant new trials based on admission or exclusion of evidence only where the outcome was affected). However, a motion for such relief should only be granted if it appears the verdict is contrary to the "clear" or "great" weight of the evidence, and a new trial is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. See Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elect. Co-op, Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 540, 78 S.Ct. 893, 902 (1958).

In the present case, the court finds that any errors committed during this trial were harmless, the case was properly submitted to the jury, and the jury was properly charged. The court believes its evidentiary rulings regarding plaintiff's prior employment were proper and the evidence was properly excluded pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 403. Accordingly, because there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict, defendant's request for a new trial is denied.

COMPROMISE VERDICT

In this matter, the court finds the jury was properly given the Allen charge after they announced they were deadlocked. The charge, given with the express consent of the defendant and the plaintiff, requested the jury to continue its deliberations, but urged the jurors not to surrender their individual judgment. Defendant has presented no evidence of a compromise verdict that would merit a new trial. Any juror misconduct appears to be mere speculation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.