Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State Univ.

DENISE TAYLOR-TRAVIS PLAINTIFF v. JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION No.: 3:12-CV-51-HTW-LRA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

December 22, 2017

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

BEFORE THIS COURT are the following post-trial motions: Jackson State University's Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Docket no. 67]¹; Denise Taylor-Travis's Motion for New Trial [Docket no. 70]; and Jackson State University's Motion to Stay Proceedings Regarding Plaintiff's Bill of Costs [Docket no. 74].

This court has reviewed the submissions of the parties, arguments of counsel, and the relevant jurisprudence. As a result, this court is persuaded that Jackson State University's Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Docket no. 67] is due to be DENIED. This court is further persuaded that Denise Taylor-Travis's Motion for New Trial [Docket no. 70] is due to be DENIED. Finally, this court is persuaded that Jackson State University's Motion to Stay Proceedings Regarding Plaintiff's Bill of Costs [Docket no. 74] is MOOT and due to be DENIED. The reasoning of this court is set out below.

I. JURISDICTION

This lawsuit has taken many twists and turns² on its road to resolution. This court is thoroughly familiar with the facts and the procedural history of this matter. That does not mean,however, that this court will not discuss what it has already discussed in previous orders it has issued in this matter.

This court earlier held that it possesses federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over this litigation. See [Docket no. 64, attached as an exhibit to this Order]. The plaintiff, Denise Taylor-Travis (hereinafter referred to as "Coach Taylor") filed this lawsuit alleging that her previous employer, defendant Jackson State University (hereinafter referred to as "JSU"), had violated her rights by discriminating against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.³, and Title IX of the Education Amendments, Title 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.⁴ Coach Taylor also alleged under state law that JSU had breached her contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, Coach Taylor alleged, also under state law, that JSU had invaded her privacy when it released allegedly confidential records to the press.

Since Coach Taylor alleges violations of her civil rights under the Civil Rights Act, a federal enactment, this court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under the authority ofTitle 28 U.S.C. § 1331⁵. This court also finds that it possesses supplemental jurisdiction over Coach Taylor's state law claims by the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367.⁶

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Coach Taylor filed her complaint on January 24, 2012. [Docket no. 1]. JSU filed its Answer on March 15, 2012. [Docket no. 5]. On October 30, 2013, this court commenced a jury trial on Coach Taylor claims for: retaliation under Title VII; retaliation under Title IX; breach of contract; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In the pretrial order, the parties stipulated that the jury would determine liability on the federal claims only, and the court would rule on the invasion of privacy claim. The parties also stipulated that the court later would determine whether the remaining state law claims would besubmitted to the jury or be decided by this court at a subsequent date. [Docket no. 54]. This court thereafter, without objection, ruled that it would submit all of Coach Taylor's claims to the jury with the exception of the invasion of privacy claim.

After sixteen (16) days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in this matter. The jury found, based on the evidence presented at trial, that JSU had not terminated Coach Taylor because of her gender; nor had JSU terminated Coach Taylor in retaliation for engaging in protected activity under Title VII or Title IX. The jury, however, determined that JSU had breached Coach Taylor's employment contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As a result of that finding, the jury awarded Coach Taylor $182,000.00.⁷

This court subsequently decided the invasion of privacy claim in favor of Coach Taylor. [Docket no. 64]. In so doing, this court awarded Coach Taylor $200,000.00 in compensatory damages, but declined awarding pecuniary damages. [Docket no. 64, P. 20]. This court entered a Judgment on Jury and Bench Verdict on August 1, 2014. [Docket no. 65].

On August 29, 2014, JSU filed its misnamed Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. [Docket no. 67]⁸. Contemporaneously, JSU filed its Memorandum in Support. [Docket no. 68]. Coach Taylor filed her response in opposition on September 15, 2014. [Docket no. 75]. On September 25, 2014, JSU filed its reply to the response filed by Coach Taylor. [Docket no. 81].

On August 29, 2014, Coach Taylor filed her Motion for New Trial without a supporting memorandum brief. [Docket no. 70]. On September 4, 2014, JSU filed its response in oppositionto Coach Taylor's motion for a new trial. [Docket no. 71]. Coach Taylor then filed her reply to JSU's response on September 15, 2014. [Docket no. 77].

On August 29, 2014, Coach Taylor filed her bill of costs in this matter. [Docket no. 69]. JSU objected to the bill of costs on September 4, 2014 without a supporting memorandum brief. [Docket no. 72]. On the next day, September 5, 2014, JSU filed its Motion to Stay Proceedings Regarding Plaintiff's Bill of Costs. [Docket no. 74].

III. FACTUAL BASIS

This court on an earlier day set out the facts of this lawsuit as found by this court and the jury during the joint jury and bench trial. [Docket no. 64]. Therefore, this court adopts the recitation of the statement of facts from this court's order dated August 1, 2014. [Docket no. 64, PP. 3-10].

IV. DISCUSSION

a. Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed) or, In the Alternative, for a New Trial or a Remittitur [Docket no. 67]

In its Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed) or, In the Alternative, for a New Trial or a Remittitur [Docket no. 67], JSU asks this court to set aside the jury verdict against it. The crux of JSU's arguments regarding the breach of contract award are threefold: that Coach Taylor failed to present evidence by which a jury reasonably could have found a breach of contract claim in her favor; that this court should have heard the breach of contract claim as a bench trial because Coach Taylor alleged a tortious breach of contract claim, not a simple breach of contract claim; and that the jury instructions that this court denied should have been granted.

JSU also argues that this court erred in ruling that JSU was liable for invasion of privacy because Coach Taylor failed to make a prima facie case of invasion of privacy and that Coach Taylor failed to present competent evidence of her damages for invasion of privacy.

Finally, JSU argues that the following alleged errors combined to preclude it from receiving a fair trial: the court's examination of witnesses; and Coach Taylor's references and arguments about JSU's refusal to arbitrate.

i. Standard of Review

JSU submits its motion for a new trial under the authority of Rule 50(b)⁹ of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 50(b) allows a party to renew a previously-raised motion for judgment as a matter of law that the court denied. The party, within 28 days of the jury verdict or the bench opinion, may file its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. In the lawsuit sub judice, this court issued the final judgment based on both the jury and bench trial verdicts on August 1, 2014. JSU filed its Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on August 29, 2014, exactly 28 days after this court had issued its judgment.

JSU also campaigns that Rule 59(a)¹⁰ of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides procedural support for its motion for a new trial. The standard under Rule 59 is:

A motion for new trial under Rule 59(a) is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Rule 59(a) provides, specifically, that the district court may grant a new jury trial "for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." Although Rule 59(a) does not delineate the precise grounds for granting a new trial, the Fifth Circuit has held that Rule 59(a) allows the district court to grant a new trial if it "finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course." Still, the decision whether to grant a new trial under Rule 59(a) is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the court's authority is broad.

Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC, 2016 WL 3536799, at *4 (E.D. La. June 28, 2016).

ii. Waiver of Issues

At the pretrial conference in this matter, the parties submitted a Pretrial Order, which they had signed in accordance with Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure¹¹ and the LocalRules of Civil Procedure for the Southern District of Mississippi Rule 16(j)¹². The Fifth Circuit recognizes that the final pretrial order governs the manner of the proceedings at trial.

It is a well-settled rule that a joint pretrial order signed by both parties supersedes all pleadings and governs the issues and evidence to be presented at trial." Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 206 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting Branch-Hines v. Hebert, 939 F.2d 1311, 1319 (5th Cir.1991)). Claims, issues, and evidence are narrowed by the pretrial order, thereby focusing and expediting the trial. Elvis, 141 F.3d at 206 (claims not preserved in a joint pretrial order were waived); Branch-Hines, 939 F.2d at 1319 (the pretrial order asserted the plaintiff's full range of damages). If a claim or issue is omitted from the final pretrial order, it may be waived, even if it appeared in the complaint. Elvis, 141 F.3d at 206.

...