*3 for anoth- applied Palmer then not filled. er, foreign lan- position in BARKETT, permanent COX, Before BIRCH 1995-96 for the at guage department KSU Judges. From a of 79 year. pool appli- academic those other cases. This is too remote to cants, a finalist. again July she was On be relevant to the motive here. The department selected Plaintiff can question Carol the decision mak- position for the of Palm- concerning Wilkerson instead ers their motive as to their er. knowledge atmosphere University or their knowledge of other alleging filed suit June complaints of anti-Semitism at Kenne- University System did not select accomplish saw. This should their stat- trial, her because she is Jewish. Before purpose offering ed the evidence. University System filed a motion alleged court finds that the actions seeking limine to exclude evidence of other persons these other is too re- *4 persons against who had filed suits the prejudice bringing mote and the in in University System discriminating alleged by persons the acts other against Jewish people. sought Palmer to this, the by confusion cause even if not introduce such in evidence order to bolster offered propensity, to show would cause witness, credibility the prove of her and to try the Court to the three other cases University System’s the stated rea- before this The further Court not hiring pretextual. sons for her were questionable finds it jury whether a Specifically, argued Palmer that the Uni- charge prejudice could lessen the or con- versity System opposed hiring only her not fusion, case, especially in this where the because she was Jewish but also because different, decision makers were the de- lawyer. her husband A was witness different, partment was and the method testified for Palmer that two members of choosing person the position the the search committee had that hir- was different. ing problematic her could be because she was Jewish and her husband was a lawyer. trial, proceeded case and after sought Palmer thus to introduce the evi- Palmer her previous dence against suits System presented KSU testimony that Palmer spearheaded by were had position not been selected for the in husband of one plaintiffs of the Jewish because, when submitted to a supported thus theory vote, her that the Univer- Foreign Languages Department sity System hiring feared that her would viewed Carol Wilkerson as a better candi- create a similar situation. date. Of the voting seven members of the Wilkerson, Department, five voted for one Ruling University System’s on the mo- Palmer, voted for and one abstained. The limine, tion in the trial court held that Department five members who voted Palmer could not present evidence about against Palmer each offered an any other In weighing lawsuit. the proba- of his or her vote.1 tive value of the against any prej- have, udicial might effect it the trial court At jury conference, found that: instruction, Palmer proposed submitted a
this evidence of other decision pattern makers’ addition to the jury instruc- tions, statements or depart- actions other specifically explicated that more ments Palmer [which seeks to if introduce] found that the reasons offered would cause the Defendants to have to University System justify its produce evidence to defend hiring its actions in pretextual, decision were it would class; provided McAllister was influenced teaching Palmer's erson of her Fideli equivocal pro- reference letter from a former voted for Wilkerson because she found Wilk- poor presentation fessor and presentation Palmer’s oral erson's and academic credentials Department; superior; voted Bobia for Wilker- Laval voted for Wilkerson on the college teaching son because presentation she had more basis of her and Palmer’s limited experience; Arrizabalaga Department during voted for Wilkerson temporary ap- role pedagogy because of her pointments. and the video Wilk- probative value weighing religious intentional to find be authorized effect, an constitutes abuse of the Universi- part on the discrimination of discretion. declined The trial court ty System. instruction. requested argues that notwith Palmer next for the Uni- a verdict
ultimately returned
evidentiary
rule on the
standing how we
appeals.
now
and Palmer
versity System
issue,.she
to a new trial because
is entitled
rul
trial court’s
We review
failing to in
the district
erred
admissibility of evidence for
ings
permissibly
it could
struct
v. Ford Mo
of discretion. Goulah
abuse
religious
inference of intentional
draw an
Cir.
tor
if it
her
facie
discrimination
believed
1997).
de
jury instructions
review
University Sys
case and disbelieved
they misstate
to determine
novo
for not
Palmer.
tem’s stated reason
preju
mislead the
or
the law
deny that the instructions
does not
objecting party. United
dice of
a correct
constituted
given to
Chandler,
Rather, Palmer con
statement of
law.
denied,
Cir.1993),
512 U.S.
cert.
properly
charge
tends that
When
*5
specifi
was not
because “the
balanced
court’s
of a trial
propriety
the
reviewing
it was authorized to
cally informed that
is to “examine
jury,
the
our task
charge
any additional
without
find for the Plaintiff
as a
charges, considered
the
Specifically,
of discrimination.”
evidence
jury so
whole, sufficiently
the
instructed
suggests
giv
that the instructions
issues and
jurors
understood
that,
sufficiently clear
make it
en did not
Starke,
not misled.” United
were
facie
she
prima
having established
Cir.1995).
(11th
So
1380
62
additional evidence
present
not need to
did
accurately reflect
long
the instructions
as
non-discriminatory
to rebut
in order
law,
wide dis
judge
given
is
the trial
System
University
given
reasons
wording em
style and
as to the
cretion
its action.
for
Bateman
See
in the instructions.
ployed
Mnemonics, Inc.,
1543
79 F.3d
System concedes that
University
The
Cir.1996).
only
plaintiff
is
warrant
Reversal
determination
factfinder’s
prima
the instruction
the failure to
ed if
elements
has established the
the re
harm to
advanced
the reasons
resulted
case and that
facie
&
See Roberts
for the adverse action
questing party.
the defendant
Schaefer
jury’s
1295
Hardaway
support
Co. v.
-untrue suffices
Cir.1998).
See
intentional discrimination.
verdict of
.
Hicks,
509
Mary’s Honor Center
St
DISCUSSION
502, 511,
125 L.Ed.2d
113 S.Ct.
(1993).
plaintiff
“a
held that
We have
to 407
First,
any
not find
merit
we do
judgment,
summary
is entitled
survive
the district
argument.that
Palmer’s
law, if
matter of
there
as a
judgment
and
excluding
its discretion
abused
evidence to demonstrate
is sufficient
lawsuits
of the other
existence
of fact
as
genuine
of a
com
existence
University System. The
employer’s prof
truth of each of
in
sought
to introduce
that she
plaints
challenged action.”
for its
decision-makers,
fered reasons
different
different
volved
Patterns, 106 F.3d
v. Plantation
Combs
process
different
departments, and
(11th Cir.1997),
denied sub
cert.
Moreover,
precluded
not
Palmer was
es.
Co., 522 U.S.
nom. Combs
of an anti-Semit
presenting evidence
Meadowcraft
139 L.Ed.2d
118 S.Ct.
University. We can
at the
atmosphere
ic
question under
decision,
Thus
ultimate
court’s
say that the district
by a
resolved
is to be
circumstances
considering
these
appropriately
at after
arrived
System
does not
they find that the four
previously
facts
set
quarrel with these statements of law but
forth
[elements of the
facie case]
general
giv-
maintains
instructions
have been established
disbelieve
adequately
en
the trial court
advised
Cabrera,
explanation.”
the defendant’s
of the relevant law.
jury’s
F.3d at 382. The
disbelief of the
explanation
defendant’s
enough
is
because
previously
We have
observed that it is
the untruthfulness
provide
itself can
inappropriate
to instruct
with
necessary
inference of discrimination.
phrases
“prima
like
facie case” and “bur
Third
explained:
Circuit
production”
“they
den of
create a
The rationale for placing so much em-
confusing
jury.”
distinct risk of
Dud
Stores, Inc.,
phasis
justification proffered by
ley v.
Wal-Mart
(11th Cir.1999).
employer
can
found in
As the
the [Su-
Second
“
stated,
preme
‘[p]rima
facie case’ is not a
Court’s statement
that] unex-
readily
by jurors,
plained
term
likely
understood
and it
acts “are more
than not
meanings
judges.
least
two
based on the consideration of impermis-
Moreover, the distinction between burden
sible factors ...
legiti-
[and] when all
persuasion
production
burden of
mate reasons
rejecting
applicant
an
jurors,
not familiar to
they may easily
have been eliminated
possible
as
reasons
by hearing
be misled
the word ‘burden’
actions,
employer’s
for the
it is more
(though referring to a
produc
burden of
likely than not
employer,
who we
tion) used with reference to a defendant in
generally
only
assume acts
with some
part
an
of that
charge
reason, based his decision on an imper-
plaintiffs
per
concerns a
burden of
missible consideration such as race.”
Finally, telling
suasion.
only
[I]t is
natural that the focus of a
*6
persuasion
burden of
‘shifts back’ to the
discrimination trial in accordance with
plaintiff after the defendant has satisfied
Douglas
McDonnell
will
veracity
be the
its
production
burden of
runs the risk of
justification
offered
the em-
creating extra confusion.”
v.
Cabrera
Jak
ployer
explain
its conduct.
If the
abovitz,
(2nd Cir.1994).
24 F.3d
381
truth,
employer fails to tell
it
does so
peril
at is own
jury may
and the
infer
however,
This
not
say,
is
that
that the real motivation is the one that
phrases
such as “prima facie case”
plaintiff
charged.
or
production”
“burden of
should not be
Borough
Smith v.
Wilkinsburg, 147
used with
explained
jury,
or
of
(3rd Cir.1998) (internal
F.3d
279
cita-
plaintiff need not establish the elements of
omitted).
tions
prima
a
facie case. There is no
that the plaintiff bears the ultimate
argument
burden
that
jury may
draw a
proving
discriminatory
that
animus was
permissible inference of intentional reli
a determinative factor in the
gious
adverse em
discrimination if it disbelieves the
ployment
plaintiff “may
decision. The
suc University System’s stated reason for not
ceed in
directly by
this either
persuading
logical
Palmer is a
extension of our
that
discriminatory
[fact finder]
rea
prior decisions reversing
grant
of sum
son
likely
more
motivated the employer
mary
or
judgment
employer
for an
indirectly by showing
employer’s
ground
that
is entitled to infer
proffered unworthy
is
of cre
pretext.
discrimination from
e.g.,
See
dence.”
Dep’t
Community
Texas
Richardson v.
Department,
Leeds Police
Af
Burdine,
(11th
450
Cir.1995);
101 71 F.3d
803
Howard
fairs
Co.,
As the
v. BP
Cir.1994);
Oil
what from cer- inferences drawn However, we in this cannot may tain well confuse rather than clarify, explained Dudley in its as the court say the trial court erred instruc Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart examining trial In tions to (11th Cir.1999). instructions, we formulation of court’s standard, looking at the deferential apply a “to as whole determine
instructions adequately ad fairly correctly stated the
dressed BIC, 181 F.3d Jennings
law.” (11th Cir.1999) Christopher (quoting Labs., 1184, 1190 v. Cutter EXPRESS, INC., MILAN Plaintiff- Cir.1995)). error find reversible “[W]e will Cross-Appellee, Appellant, give requested instruc the refusal only if ... failure to tion resulted in harm to EXPRESS, INC., United AVERITT Roberts & requesting party.” Schae- Co., Fidelity Guaranty De First of all we at 1295.
fer Cross-Appellants. fendants-Appellees, totality say, considering cannot No. 98-7024. circumstances, prejudiced trial refusal deliver the court’s Appeals, Court of United States by her. specific proposed instructions Eleventh Circuit. *7 concedes the trial con April instructions, correctlyin law veyed the have only that the court should arguing suggested language for more
added her
clarity. argued Both sides understanding with a
their cases correct law, given fairly and the instructions correctly
addressed the issues and We find that the district court
the law. no reversible error
this case committed
delivering its instructions. would might suggest helpful that it
however In Jury Pattern
for the Committee On Judges
structions of District Associa to revisit the
tion of Eleventh Circuit
pattern jury on this issue to any improvements
consider whether
clarity might be warranted.
AFFIRMED.