Jennifer Smith v. Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Board of Trustees
687 F. App'x 888
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Professor Jennifer Smith sued Florida A&M University (FAMU) for pay inequity, sex discrimination, and retaliation, alleging female law professors were paid less than comparable male professors.
- At trial the jury found Smith paid less than comparable male professors but concluded the pay difference was for reasons other than sex and found FAMU not liable on all claims.
- During trial a FAMU witness referenced a list of professors’ salaries that was not produced in discovery; Smith did not contemporaneously object and later sought a new trial alleging an ambush.
- After the trial, a new interim dean commissioned a statistical analysis using publicly available salary data showing a gender pay gap, and FAMU took remedial pay measures; Smith also experienced a post-trial denial of her fourth promotion application.
- Smith moved post-trial for a new trial and for relief from judgment (including Rule 60(b) and 60(d) claims) asserting newly discovered evidence and fraud on the court; the district court denied relief.
- The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion (and plain error for the unpreserved trial objection) and affirmed the district court, concluding no abuse of discretion or plain error and no fraud on the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of unproduced salary list at trial | Smith argued the reference to an undisclosed salary list was an ambush that warranted a new trial | FAMU argued the reference was harmless and Smith did not preserve the objection | No plain error; objection was unpreserved and appellate court declined to overturn district court |
| Post-trial statistical study and remedial pay measures as newly discovered evidence | Smith contended the study and remedial action showed a gender-based pay gap and warranted a new trial or relief | FAMU argued the study used publicly available data Smith had relied on at trial and remedies do not prove prior discriminatory intent | Denied: study was not newly discovered evidence entitling relief; remedies not a confession of liability |
| Post-trial promotion denial as new evidence of discrimination | Smith argued the post-trial rejection supported relief or a new trial | FAMU maintained the post-trial decision was not material new evidence of pre-trial discrimination | Denied: post-trial promotion decision is not new evidence warranting relief from the judgment (citing precedent) |
| Fraud on the court / Rule 60(d) claim | Smith alleged fraud upon the court based on trial and post-trial developments | FAMU denied any fraud; district court found no evidence of fraud | Denied: no evidence of fraud on the court; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 60(b) motion)
- McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortgage Serv., Inc., 817 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 59(a) motion)
- Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 769 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2014) (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2014) (review standard for denial of Rule 60(d) motion)
- Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd., 297 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2002) (plain-error test for unpreserved objections)
- NLRB v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 569 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1978) (post-judgment employment actions do not necessarily constitute newly discovered evidence)