Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jetstream Ground Services, Inc.
878 F.3d 960
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- JetStream Ground Services hired for United Airlines contract; held a job fair for AirServ employees in Nov. 2008; several Muslim women who wore hijabs were not hired and sued for religious discrimination (EEOC + individual plaintiffs).
- JetStream initially said non-hires were due to applicants’ forms/interviews; later asserted hires followed recommendations from AirServ supervisor Arnold Knoke based on a list created at a Nov. 5 meeting.
- JetStream produced a Nov. 10 Excel spreadsheet but original handwritten notes and an earlier version of the Nov. 5 list were lost/disposed; plaintiffs claimed violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (record-preservation) and moved for spoliation sanctions.
- Plaintiffs sought either exclusion of JetStream testimony about the Knoke list or an adverse-inference jury instruction that the missing list would have been unfavorable to JetStream; the district court reserved ruling pretrial and later denied the requested sanctions.
- At trial plaintiffs discussed the Knoke list extensively in opening (without objecting to its admission); plaintiffs conceded at closing that destruction was not in bad faith; jury ruled for JetStream and the district court denied a new trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of evidence/testimony was required as spoliation sanction for violating § 1602.14 | Violation of regulation warranted preclusion of JetStream testimony about the Knoke list | No preclusion; trial objection not renewed and evidence admissible; court properly reserved pretrial ruling | Waived at trial by plaintiffs’ conduct (opening statement); district court did not abuse discretion denying preclusion |
| Whether an adverse-inference jury instruction was required after loss of the records | The regulation violation entitles plaintiffs to an inference that missing records were unfavorable | Adverse inference requires bad faith; plaintiffs conceded no bad faith; instruction therefore improper | Denial affirmed: adverse inference not warranted because plaintiffs conceded no bad faith and defendant produced rebutting evidence |
| Whether Hicks precedent (presumption from § 1602.14 violation) compelled an instruction despite lack of bad faith | Hicks creates a presumption for destroyed records even without bad faith | Post-Hicks Tenth Circuit decisions require bad faith or, if presumption applies, it disappears if opposing party rebuts it | Hicks distinguishable: any presumption was rebutted by JetStream testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 301, so no instruction was proper |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying new-trial motion based on alleged spoliation | Failure to sanction prejudiced trial and warrants new trial | No abuse: plaintiffs waived exclusion, conceded no bad faith, and evidence rebutted presumption | Denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir.) (adverse inference requires bad faith; inadvertent loss insufficient)
- Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir.) (party seeking adverse inference must prove bad faith for spoliation of interview notes)
- Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406 (10th Cir.) (selective destruction of personnel records violated § 1602.14 and court recognized a presumption favoring the aggrieved party)
- Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir.) (rebuttable presumption disappears once opposing party produces sufficient evidence to support contrary finding)
- Presbyterian/St. Luke's Med. Ctr. v. N.L.R.B., 653 F.2d 450 (10th Cir.) (presumptions under Fed. R. Evid. 301 disappear upon introduction of evidence sustaining a finding contrary to the presumed fact)