Robert Gardner v. Federal Express Corp.
16-15891
| 9th Cir. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Gardner sued FedEx alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate, and retaliation after his job-protected medical leave ended.
- At trial, the jury answered special interrogatories, including that Gardner’s disability or medical leave was NOT a substantial motivating reason for his discharge.
- The district court gave several jury instructions challenged by Gardner: “Limitation on Remedies - Same Decision,” a proposed reasonable-accommodation instruction (which the court refused), and a “Reliance on Medical Opinions” instruction (which the court gave).
- Gardner moved for a new trial and asked the court to strike costs; the district court denied both requests.
- Gardner appealed, arguing instructional error (including that the remedies instruction and the reliance-on-medical-opinions instruction were improper), that the court should have given his accommodation instruction, that the jury’s inconsistent answers required a new trial, and that state law (rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)) should govern the award of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "Limitation on Remedies - Same Decision" jury instruction was erroneous and required reversal | Instruction was improper and prejudicial | Any instructional error was harmless because jury found no motivating reason for discharge | Any error was harmless; no reversal required |
| Whether the district court should have given Gardner's proposed reasonable-accommodation instruction (three-month extension) | Gardner could have been accommodated by a 3-month extension of job-protected leave | After 90 days, no comparable full-time ramp driver positions existed; employer not required to create a position under FEHA | Court upheld refusal: employer not required to create new position absent vacant comparable job |
| Whether the "Reliance on Medical Opinions" instruction was improper because it did not say employer cannot rely solely on medical opinions | Instruction could be read to allow sole reliance on medical opinions, undermining interactive process requirement | Instruction correctly permitted consideration of medical opinions and did not state sole reliance was allowed; sufficient evidentiary basis existed | Instruction appropriate; no abuse of discretion in giving it |
| Whether jury inconsistencies (adverse-action answers) required a new trial | Jury's answers were internally inconsistent and thus a new trial is required | Answers can be reconciled; verdicts consistent when read together | Denial of new trial affirmed; verdicts construed consistently in favor of final outcome |
| Whether federal law or state law governs awarding costs | State law should apply | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) governs awards of standard costs in federal court | Federal law controls; district court correctly applied FRCP 54(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for denial of new trial: abuse of discretion)
- Gantt v. City of L.A., 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013) (instructional error in civil case requires reversal unless harmless)
- Watkins v. Ameripride Servs., 375 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2004) (under FEHA employer need only reassign disabled employee to existing vacant position for which employee is qualified)
- Yan Fang Du v. Allstate Ins. Co., 697 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirements for sufficient evidentiary foundation to give an instruction)
- Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard costs in federal district court ordinarily governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d))
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108 (1963) (special interrogatories must be read to make jury answers consistent when possible)