*3 HANSEN, Before FAGG Circuit PIERSOL,1 Judges, Judge. District PIERSOL, Judge. appeals R-VI School District
Strafford Cowan, jury verdict from a favor of Leslie teacher, in her under former school lawsuit 1964, 42 Rights of the Civil Act of Title VII seq., § et 2000e discrimi- U.S.C. § nation and U.S.C. for violation rights. Amendment her First cross-appeal. appeals filed a She from deny court’s decision to reinstate- remedy in this case. We affirm. ment as
I. BACKGROUND the Strafford
Leslie Cowan hired grade a second as R-VI probationary in the fall of teacher on basis teacher, probationary her con- As a subject the School tract was renewal Customarily, the on an annual basis. Board or an ele- of whether not to renew decision made mentary school teacher’s contract was Board with the advice of by the School gen- principal, Cogdill, and school Lucille eral, Cogdill’s rec- board followed the school ommendations. Dakota, Piersol, by designation. sitting United
1. The Honorable Lawrence L. Judge for of South States District the District tenure, in a improvement years indicate areas needed of Cowan’s For the first renewed Cowan’s contract. is- performance.2 targets Board teacher’s the School however, year, her third After indicated two she need- sued to Cowan areas unanimously not to renew Co- voted Board improve: relationships interpersonal ed to Cogdill’s with contract accordance wan’s parents process. with and instructional that this action was believes advice. Cowan school beginning 1992-93 At “magic letter” that she sent rock result meeting year, Cogdill in which held staff graders on the last with her second home that she was con- she informed teachers day The letter read as follows: of school. perception about the school cerned Dear Second Grader: teaching regard New with grade. completed second Be- You have Ageism, and instructed teachers to avoid hard, you you so de- have worked cause *4 teaching. magical in their In con- notions just something special unique; and serve discussion, junction with this she announced your something special is you! That like by pastor, the a seminar coordinated local very magic rock. own Stark, to the Reverend that was devoted always magic you have will let The rock Ageism of of New and the infiltration anything you can do that you that know in Age thinking public the schools. New your make rock your mind to. To you set say work, your eyes, rub to close Cogdill been informed about the semi- had times, special “I am a yourself three by personally. nar the Reverend He Stark my of own!” person, talents terrific with Cogdill copy had of visited after he seen away, you put your rock think of Before magic brought by letter home his the rock good yourself. things about After three granddaughter. The Reverend communicat- away, you will you put your rock have Cogdill ed that he considered the letter to to magic has worked. know that the contrary his be beliefs. Other IN THIRD GRADE!!!! HAVE FUN of the Strafford communi- members letter a rock and sent Cowan attached ty magic the rock let- were concerned about May in of 1992. home each student one with Vawter, ter as well. The Reverend another 1992, August Cogdill of informed Cowan In pastor, congregants local his that indicated to par- complaints from that she had received they Age needed to be concerned about New “magic regarding rock letter.” In ents of the schools because a teacher infiltration particular, Cogdill that indicated two families system teaching in the school was New private their decided to children to had move Ageism through magic to students the use of result Christian as a direct of use schools rocks. Cogdill up this of the letter. followed discus- year Over the of the 1992-93 school course Cowan to avoid sion with an admonition to only Cogdill support lukewarm for showed Cogdill magical teaching. in After ideas her improve her teach- Cowan her efforts letter, regarding the spoke with Cowan she Then, ing. of in March of on eve Superintendent District informed the School Cowan’s, School Board’s vote contract magic letter was cause for rock renewal, Cogdill suggested to Cowan that This in- among parents. concern resign going was to be because she passed on the School formation was also resign, shortly renewed. Cowan did not August Cogdill Also is- .Board. thereafter, voted unani- the School Board “job targets” targets sued to Cowan. Job mously not renew used District to Cowan’s contract. are devices School discussing many disputes job targets trial at the March 1992 2. One of the factual issuing timing meeting upon whether the School Board had discussed based his recollection of the targets although rebuttal, to Cowan in March of miscarriage spring. Cowan’s August, they were not issued until or whether testify took that she had had the stand to job targets only after the had issued miscarriage spring Upon dis- in the light. “magic rock" issue came to This factual covering that Cowan had had an abortion in controversy the School mo- underlies District’s spring of the School District filed a Rule judgment for under Fed.R.Civ.P. tion relief from 60(b) alleging Cowan lied about the 60(b). Roger Lile testi- School Board member miscarriage. specifically at trial that could remember fied he nonrenewal, the School District raised and briefed Co- of her consequence As a this Court. before against the School filed suit wan because not renewed that she was alleging Analysis B. Mixed-Motives religious sensibilities she had offended claimed community. Cowan the Strafford argues also The School District acted violation that the School it denied the the trial court erred when First Title and the rights under VII judgment for as a District’s motion School jury returned verdict The alternative, Amendment. or, in for a new law matter of VII, religious discrim- the Title for Cowan on the dis appeal the Court reviews trial. On claim, damages in the amount with ination a motion for denial of trict court’s $18,000.00. returned a verdict also using the same of law de novo as a matter Amendment, 42 on the First favor Cowan’s court. Keenan as the district standards claim, damages were no § but Int’l, Inc., U.S.C. Computer Assoc. Post-trial, the district court denied (8th Cir.1994). awarded. must deter This Court judgment as District’s motion evidence there is sufficient mine “‘whether ” alternative, or, in the a matter of law (quoting jury verdict.’ Id. support a Also, trial court denied trial. Pence, new White judg- for relief from District’s motion 1992)). course, must view that the Court Of 60(b) upon based Fed.R.Civ.P. ment under light to the most favorable evidence *5 perju- had committed that Cowan allegations verdict, engage “weighing in a may not and addition, court considered ry at trial. In consider of the evidence or or evaluation posi- in her to be reinstated Cowan’s credibility.” places Id. “The law questions of District, than but rather tion with the School jury overturning a ver high a standard Cowan, trial court chose 1214, reinstate Hathaway Runyon, F.3d v. 132 dict.” pay. Both years front Cir.1997). (8th Thus, award Cowan judgment as a 1220 rulings. court’s the trial parties appeal from only appropriate all of “is when matter of law ‘suscepti way and is points one the evidence II. DISCUSSION sustaining the reasonable inference ble of no ” nonmoving party.’ Keenan position of Summary Judgment A. Denial 779). evi at The (quoting White at 1269 by raised first issue juror such that no reasonable must be dence court erred the district is whether non-moving party. have found for could summary judgment. denying its motion appellate court Hathaway 1220. When an directly whether addressed This Court new trial a motion for a a denial of reviews judgment may be re summary denial 59(a) a much more defer under Fed.R.Civ.P. See, on the merits. a full trial viewed after used; the trial court’s deci is ential standard Ins. Co. v. Golden e.g., Metropolitan Life absent a clear abuse not be reversed sion will (8th Cir.1997); 351, 354 Triangle, 121 F.3d Keenan at 1269. discretion. Nat'l Ins. Int'l Co. v. Jackson Johnson Life argues that Cir.1994). (8th The School It is Co., 434 19 F.3d linking any produce evidence did not ruling by a Cowan “[a] established that well to the employment decision District’s interloc denying summary court Title required under letter as magic rock appealable after utory and not in nature ease under in a discrimination plaintiff A Int’l at VII. merits.” Johnson on the full trial under the Price Water proceed can v. Title VII Farmers Elevator (citing Bottineau 228, 109 S.Ct. Hopkins, 490 U.S. Consultants, house Woodward-Clyde (1989), motives Cir.1992)). mixed (8th L.Ed.2d 268 After a dis 1068 n. that establishes employee if first analysis an summary judgment court has denied trict em motivating in the factor trial, religion was a proceeds to the case motion and per Then the burden decision. ployment its party has met question of whether defendant, must who to the shifts considering the rec suasion by answered burden is same made the it would have that whole, show pretrial evidence ord as illegal Therefore, in the absence even decision Int’l at 434. isolation. Johnson Bell Stacks v. Southwestern criteria. See first that concludes the Court (8th apprehensions regarding New Pages, Yellow unsup- generally her Cir.1993). Ageism coupled with her plaintiff is entitled have A Cowan, provided portive behavior toward analyzed stan under the mixed motives case “ jury to for the conclude evidence sufficient of conduct or presents if she ‘evidence dard con- Cogdill was motivated by persons involved in the deci statements cerns.3 process may be viewed as making sion discriminatory alleged directly reflecting the indi- presented at trial There evidence was v. McDonnell attitude..." Nitschke teaching performance cating that Cowan’s Corp., 68 F.3d
Douglas poor. particular, there was evidence was Mills, 1995) Radabaugh Zip Feed (quoting discrepancies demonstrating be- substantial (8th Cir.1993)). gave her students grades tween her received on stan- and the scores students proceed The trial court allowed Cowan jury could dis- tests. The dardized mixed- motives under the Pnce Waterhouse evidence, however, in view of the count despite analysis, the School District’s testimony other teachers who believe contrary, was to the there suffi- contentions good are not standardized test scores presented at trial for a reason- evidence cient performance. teacher measures of persons involved able to conclude making process were motivated the decision Further, Cogdill although was teaching regarding the concerns Board, voting of the School member Principal Cogdill received Ageism. of New was substantial evidence to indicate there parents who believed the complaints from intimately in the decision was involved she religious be- magic rock letter violated their process nonre making that led Cowan’s liefs, during year, the 1992-93 school present participated Cogdill newal. among reli- there was concern Strafford’s Board meet executive School closed gious community regarding dissemination all were ings in which contract decisions compelled Age beliefs. felt of New recpmmendation made, re presented *6 concerns. attended respond to to these She contract, according to and garding Cowan’s Ageism sponsored by the program a New at Board members testified the School who religious where she was local trial, given great Cogdill’s judgment was against upon defend the school at- called Many weight. of the' School Board members anti-Christian, practicing it was tacks that general, Cogdill’s in recom conceded that teaching. Age of In this anti- modes significant New in the most factor mendation was Cogdill Age atmosphere, instructed her New a teacher’s the decision whether to renew magical their of to limit use staff members contract. these circumstances Under in Cogdill singled partic- out regarded notions. Cowan clearly be as someone who was can magical in making and her to avoid ideas process, ular told decision and part the question whether teaching. jury While we could conclude that her ani reasonable pled prima process. properly facie case of infected that Cowan mus toward Cowan discrimination, Therefore, correctly this is court denied religious since the trial Court, as matter law properly judgment the we conclude the motion for not before Cogdill’s response in to the or new trial.4 that conduct analysis, foregoing Eighth the Court need nor 4. Given the 3. The Circuit has neither considered argument "religious "employ .adopted or not address the School District’s the sensibilities” among ju atmosphere” caused confusion the claim of discrimina the instructions ment preserve by In an instructional issue the court in Turic v. Hol rors. order tion as articulated basis, Inc., precise F.Supp. appeal, party state the Hospitality, for must land (W.D.Mich.1994) (plaintiff Dupre pled objections properly its in the record. v. Fru a claim for alleged Eng’g, F.3d she Con discrimination where 1997). party opposed plaintiff’s not for a to claim It is sufficient co-workers that Christian objections grounds were stated employer in that the for the and that acted view abortion record, particularly parties religious disapproval the off the where response co-workers objections on rec part, part to state their the plaintiff), in on other were invited in rev'd aff'd Here, (6th Cir.1996). Id. indicates that the The Court ord. the record grounds, F.3d 1211 objected to No. 5 in "instruction stated her School District notes that whether Cowan below, improp entirety____[¡Instruction as an No. 7 was raised and there its prima facie case fore, proof Price Waterhouse burden of instruction will the issue here. er this Court not address
H59
major
of the
issues in the
argument,
In a
the School
One
factual
case
related
timing
its
the district court abused
of the
Board’s
contends that
was
School
discus-
submitting
“job
in
the mixed-motives
targets”
discretion
of Cowan’s
sion
which were
theory
jury
in
instructions.5 As indicated
August
its
issued in
of 1992. School Board
above,
support
evidence was sufficient
Roger Lile
at trial that
member
testified
he
analysis,
the mixed motives
a verdict under
certainty
could remember with
therefore,
the mixed motives instructions
job
issuing
targets
had discussed
Board
jury.
to the
appropriately submitted
were
in March of
Cowan
1992 because
was
experi-
around
same time that Cowan
Miscarriage
C. Cowan’s
miscarriage.
response
enced
this
testimony,
The School District contends
Cowan took the stand and told the
abused
miscarriage
court
its discretion
had
that she
suffered a
60(b)
under
denying
its motion
Fed.R.Civ.P.
spring of
in 1992. If the
upon newly discovered evidence
based
targets were not
at the March
discussed
of its
fraud
motion for reconsideration
and its
implication
meeting,
School Board
Newly
motion
a new trial.
discovered
job targets
August
that the
were issued
as
diligence
due
could not
evidence which
consequence
the magic
rock letter.
to move for a
have been discovered
time
trial,
After the conclusion of the
grounds
from a
may
new
be
for relief
trial
examined
Cowan’s medical records
60(b)(2).
final
under
judgment
Fed.R.Civ.P.
an
and found evidence that Cowan had
abor-
Mid-America,
Flags
Hicks
Over
v. Six
ectopic pregnancy
as a result of an
tion
(8th Cir.1987).
1317 n. 6
Under
time
about the same
Lile believed
60(b)(3),
may
court
trial
Fed.R.Civ.P.
miscarriage.
upon
had a
had
Based
from a final
based
party
relieve a
60(b)
evidence, the School District filed its
fraud, misrepresentation
mis
upon
or other
regard-
arguing that
had lied
Cowan
party.
Relief is
conduct of the adverse
Id.
pregnancies.
ing her
60(b)(3)
only
under Rule
where the
available
soundly rejected
court
The district
prevented
moving
party’s
misconduct
argument.
District’s
The medical
evi-
party
fully
fairly presenting
its
from
presented to
dence
the court indicates that
Co.,
Berns,
ease.
Hutton &
Inc. v.
E.F.
ectopic
pregnancy
had an
or tubal
(8th Cir.1985).
moving
surgically
spring
that was
terminated
prove
alleged mis
party
required to
miscarriage in
1992 and suffered a
convincing
by clear and
evidence.
conduct
*7
agrees
spring of 1993. This
with the
Further,
Court
will not
Hicks at 1317.
this Court
regard-
60(b)
not lie
district court
Cowan did
ruling
court’s Rule
overturn a district
pregnancy
spring
in the
of 1992.
ing
v.
the
absent
of discretion. Mitchell
an abuse
Cir.1995).
(8th
Instead,
Shalala,
ask
the School District did not
Co-
1041
48
may
responsible
paragraph
district
held
...
No.
as also
the school
be
.[and] the final
of
Cogdill,
principal.
proof
actions of Mrs.
the
improper
of
the
an
Price Waterhouse burden
addition, any action
the Board of Education
at 968.
of
instruction.”
Tr.
The School
regarding
contracts is
objection.
non-renewal of teacher
properly
its
failed to
state
"confusion”
may
Thus,
action for which
school district
be
an
the
plain
under
stan-
review is
the
error
our
Anheuser-Busch,
liable.
held
dard.
v.
96 F.3d
Kehoe
Cir.1996).
that this instruction
(8th
The School
contends
assuming, with-
1104
Even
§
permitted it to be held liable for Cowan's
1983
gave faulty
deciding,
court
instruc-
out
that the
theory
respon-
impermissible
an
of
tions,
claim under
plain,
any
could not
error
be considered
Assoc,
superior.
Springdale
See
Educ.
deat
v.
support
since
evidence was
to
the
sufficient
(8th
Dist.,
Springdale
651
School
133 F.3d
finding
Id.
of discrimination.
Cir.1998).
properly states
The School District
respect
respondeat superior lia-
the law with
to
argues
also
trial
5. The School District
that the
context,
§
bility
as
but
indicated
submitting jury
five
court erred in
instruction
above,
properly state
the School District failed to
which states:
Further,
objection
the
the Court
its
record.
fairly
may
The
School District
read
defendant Strafford R-VI
be
believes
instruction
§
may
only through
persons
distinguish
natural
as its
between
Title VII and
act
thus,
claims,
any ambiguity certainly
agents.
prohibiting employ-
does
law
Under
concerns,
upon
plain
of
religious
rise to the level
error.
ment actions based
not
might
renewed
elicited the
because
contract
be
would have
questions that
wan
regarding
complained about
such circum-
legitimate
now
reasons. Under
information
does not
This circumstance
pregnancy.
stances,
its
court did not abuse
district
grant
Rule
appropriate basis
provide an
years
pay.
awarding
in
front
discretion
60(b) relief,
newly
evi-
discovered
nor is
weight, in view of the trial
dence
sufficient
III. CONCLUSION
record,
grant
District’s motion.
entry of
court’s
We affirm
district
Int’l,
Morris, 11
Inc.
Baxter
jury
as
Cir.1993). Therefore,
judgment on
verdict in this case
(8th
trial
court did
by denying
presented
the Rule
there was sufficient evidence
not abuse its discretion
60(b)
Similarly,
court
the district
find
motion.
trial
which a reasonable
could
from
refusing
Also,
not .abuse its discretion
did
the trial court
Cowan.
favor
for a
the School District’s motion
reconsider
denied
School District’s
trial.
new
60(b). Finally,
Rule
the district court
under
refusing
did
abuse its discretion
D. Reinstatement
The facts of this case
order reinstatement.
Finally, the Court must consider
im-
would be
demonstrate that reinstatement
granting
whether the trial court erred
impossible, given the na-
practicable, if not
in the form of two
equitable relief
operations.
ture of school
years
pay.
trial court’s decision to
front
pay is
for abuse
grant Cowan front
reviewed
HANSEN,
concurring.
Judge,
Circuit
Standley
of discretion.
v. Chilhowee R-IV
opinion
I
in the court’s
and its
concur
(8th Cir.1993).
Dist.,
5 F.3d
judgment,
only
but
because the School Dis
although
The district court determined
adequately
trict failed
to raise
generally
preferred
reinstatement
met
whether Cowan
her initial burden
remedy
termi
employment
in an unlawful
showing prima
facie case. See McDonnell
case,
presented
this
extraordi
nation
case
Green,
792, 802,
Corp.
Douglas
U.S.
nary
circumstances which warrant denial
(1973).
1817, 1824,36 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
See, e.g.,
reinstatement.
McIntosh v. Jones
Lines, Inc.,
Truck
employ
an
Title VII makes
unlawful for
1985);
Standley,
see also
knew a belief decided of such of it. Her Title VII her contract because a matter of claim therefore insufficient as would not have withstood probably law and for failure properly dismiss crafted 12(b)(6). a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. state raised, I re- would Were the issue However, court. because verse the district issue, I has not raised this School District concur. JENKINS, Jr., Kimberly
Ken
Jenkins, Appellants, POWER ARKANSAS & LIGHT COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 97-3082. Appeals, States Court of United Eighth Circuit. March 1998. Submitted April Decided