Teresa Manning v. Carolyn Jones
875 F.3d 408
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Teresa Manning applied multiple times for a legal analysis and writing faculty position at University of Iowa College of Law and was not hired.
- Manning alleges that during her initial application an associate dean told her not to tell faculty about a prior offer from a conservative law school; her résumé showed conservative affiliations.
- Manning sued the dean under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
- This opinion is from the Eighth Circuit on Manning’s appeal from the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial after a jury found she failed to prove political discrimination; it is the third appellate disposition of the case.
- Manning raised multiple challenges to trial rulings (jury instructions, judicial admission, exclusion of evidence, punitive damages instruction), but many arguments were not preserved with proper record citations or were not raised in the new-trial motion.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a new trial, largely on procedural and reviewability grounds and on the merits where addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury summary and final instructions | District court misled jury by saying dean was “obliged” to follow faculty recommendation and failed to cure | Dean argued instructions were proper and accurate description of her position | Not considered because Manning failed to cite record locations; argument not reviewed |
| Judicial admission about dean’s hiring responsibility | Dean made a binding judicial admission during oral argument; thus she should be barred from contesting responsibility | Dean denied a binding admission; extent of her hiring authority was a jury question | Court declined to consider for lack of record citation; even on merits, prior statements were dictum and did not bind jury |
| JMOL (judgment as a matter of law) on discrimination claim | Manning argued she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Dean argued factual disputes existed and jury verdict stands | Not reached: Manning did not raise JMOL in new-trial motion and appeal limited to denial of new-trial motion (jurisdictional bar) |
| Exclusion of evidence (salary and email) | Salary and an email should have been admitted | District court excluded them as irrelevant or inadmissible | Salary exclusion not considered (no record cite); email located in record but issue not preserved in new-trial motion—court lacked jurisdiction to review |
| Punitive damages instruction | Jury should have been instructed on punitive damages | District court declined to give such an instruction | Moot because jury verdict for defendant; no relief required |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Jones, 664 F.3d 259 (8th Cir.) (prior opinion discussing factual issues for jury)
- Wagner v. Jones, 758 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir.) (prior opinion noting dean’s asserted final authority — dictum)
- ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 762 F.3d 744 (8th Cir.) (appellate review limited when appellant fails to cite record)
- Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial: abuse of discretion and miscarriage of justice)
- United States v. York, 830 F.2d 885 (8th Cir.) (failure to cure an unpreserved jury instruction error)
- Bannister v. Delo, 100 F.3d 610 (8th Cir.) (on whether statements constitute binding admissions)
- Rosillo v. Holten, 817 F.3d 595 (8th Cir.) (appellate jurisdictional limits when issue not raised below)
- Landscape Props., Inc. v. Vogel, 46 F.3d 1416 (8th Cir.) (mootness of punitive-damages instruction after defense verdict)