699 F. App'x 547
6th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Mark Laster sued the City of Kalamazoo under Title VII for retaliation, alleging the City punished him for EEOC complaints. A jury returned a verdict for the City.
- On appeal Laster challenged (1) alleged judicial bias by the district court during trial and (2) the district court’s exclusion of certain proffered evidence.
- Much of the litigation history included prior summary-judgment rulings: the Sixth Circuit previously affirmed summary judgment for the City on most claims, leaving only three alleged retaliatory acts for trial.
- At trial the district court limited evidence and prevented relitigation of matters decided earlier in the case (law of the case), and made several terse or critical comments to plaintiff’s counsel (some within earshot of the jury).
- Laster did not contemporaneously object to the court’s comments at trial; the appellate review for those claims was therefore for plain error. Challenges to evidentiary rulings were reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias / appearance of partiality | District court’s comments and rulings showed partiality and deprived Laster of a fair trial | Court’s remarks and rulings were proper, often outside jury presence, and consistent with prior law-of-the-case rulings | Affirmed — appellant abandoned underdeveloped argument; even on the merits, no plain error or unfair trial found |
| Exclusion of proffered evidence | Court abused discretion by excluding several material exhibits | Exclusions were proper because evidence exceeded scope of issues remaining after prior summary-judgment rulings | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court rightly limited evidence to issues remaining on remand |
| Scope of permissible evidence after prior rulings | N/A (implicit) — Laster sought to revisit issues previously decided | Law of the case permits limiting evidence to issues remaining for trial | District court acted within discretion applying law-of-the-case to limit evidence |
| Standard of review for complaints about judge’s demeanor | N/A — procedural point (Laster didn’t object) | Plain-error review applies; high hurdle to show bias when conduct mainly outside jury | Court applied plain-error standard and found requirements unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements of plain-error review)
- United States v. Morrow, 977 F.2d 222 (6th Cir. 1992) (judge must exhibit impartiality in demeanor and actions)
- United States v. Blood, 435 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006) (remarks indicating hostility to a party can show bias)
- United States v. Hendrickson, 822 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2016) (perfunctory appellate arguments are abandoned)
- Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014) (undeveloped arguments deemed abandoned)
- Moore v. Mitchell, 848 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2017) (law of the case applies to later stages of litigation)
- United States v. Mack, 808 F.3d 1074 (6th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)