An individual [Probationer] was appointed to a position by the New York and New Jersey Port Authority [Authority] on August 22, subject to the satisfactory completion of a probationary period and was assigned to performing various duties at Newark Airport. On December 23, Probationer was dismissed from the position, having "committed a runway incursion" when she drove a vehicle onto an active runway, causing an airplane to abort its landing on December 22.
Probationer challenged her dismissal from her position, bringing an action in federal district court alleging she was dismissed by the Authority because of her race, national origin, and, or, gender in violation of Title VII.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Authority, finding that the Authority "did not wrongfully terminate [Probationer's] employment in violation of Title VII." Probationer appealed the district court jury's decision. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, [Circuit Court], however, sustained the jury's verdict. In so doing:
1. The Circuit Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that a jury could have found in her favor, explaining
that such an argument "is not a basis to vacate the judgment or remand for
a new trial"; and
2. With respect to Probationer's request for a "judgment as a matter of law" [JMOL], the Circuit Court noted “[i]t is well established that a party is not entitled to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict on a given issue unless it has timely moved in the district court for judgment as a matter of law on that issue."
Finding that Probationer failed to make a pre-verdict motion for a JMOL under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50(a) or Rule 50(b), the Circuit Court pointed out that a "JMOL may not properly be ... ordered by the appellate court unless that action is required in order to prevent manifest injustice.”
The Circuit Court, in sustaining the district court jury's decision, opined the Probationer "has not shown that it would be manifestly unjust for the jury verdict to stand" and that the jury’s verdict was clearly supported by sufficient evidence in that Probationer committed:
[1] the alleged runway incursion;
[2] did not realize she did so;
[3] did not take immediate corrective steps; and
[4] did not understand the serious safety ramifications of the incursion.
Further, the Circuit Court noted that the authority presented evidence from which a jury could conclude that the circumstances surrounding "the runway incursion of an alleged male comparator who was not fired were substantially different" from the incursion by the Plaintiff. In the words of the Circuit Court, unlike Probationer's incursion, the "comparator’s incursion occurred in the middle of a blizzard, and he immediately reported the incident."
Click HERE to access the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, posted on the Internet.