Roderick A. McGarry v. Marilyn Pielech
108 A.3d 998
| R.I. | 2015Background
- McGarry appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial after a jury verdict favoring Pielech in a Rhode Island age-discrimination hiring suit.
- The first trial on discrimination and retaliation claims ended with favorable verdicts for McGarry on both, but those were vacated and a Rule 59 new trial was granted in his favor on discrimination.
- On remand, a second jury trial addressed the discrimination claim only, regarding two English-teacher positions at Cumberland Middle School in 1998.
- Interview notes from July 1998 were missing; McGarry learned of the absence after reviewing his personnel file, and alleged this suggested age discrimination.
- McGarry was 56; the selected candidates were under 40; he held multiple degrees and teaching certifications, and had a long but interrupted teaching career.
- During the December 2012 trial, the court admitted a spoliation instruction about the missing interview notes, but excluded certain testimony and rejected two statutory/federal regulation jury instructions; the jury later ruled for Pielech and McGarry pursued post-trial relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusion from the 1999 letter testimony | McGarry argues the letter and related testimony were probative of pretext. | Pielech argues the letter’s contested portions would confuse issues and mislead the jury. | Exclusion affirmed; within trial court discretion; no reversible error. |
| Jury instructions on 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 and § 28-6.4-1 | McGarry seeks instructions under federal record-keeping and Rhode Island inspection statutes. | Pielech contends these provisions are inapplicable to the case and documents. | No error; instructions properly declined as inapplicable and not germane. |
| Preclusion of retaliation claim at second trial | McGarry should be allowed to present retaliation evidence per prior appeal mandates. | Pielech argues retaliation is barred by waiver and by the mandate restricting issues. | Waived; the court correctly followed the prior mandate and barred retaliation evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (admissibility of evidence is within trial court’s discretion)
- State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008) (standard for reviewing evidentiary decisions)
- State v. Long, 61 A.3d 439 (R.I. 2013) (jury instructions must cover applicable law)
- Casco Indemnity Co. v. O’Connor, 755 A.2d 779 (R.I. 2000) (mixed questions of law and fact review standard)
- Bowen Court Associates v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 818 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2003) (waiver doctrine for appellate issues)
- Estate of Meller v. Adolf Meller Co., 554 A.2d 648 (R.I. 1989) (waiver and preservation of appellate arguments guidance)