Filed: Aug. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court DJUAN PRESTON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 18-6026 (D.C. No. 5:16-CV-00112-F) SKF USA, INC.; LOCAL 1546 UNITED (W.D. Okla.) FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO- CLC, Defendants - Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _ Djuan Preston Williams, proceeding pro
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court DJUAN PRESTON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 18-6026 (D.C. No. 5:16-CV-00112-F) SKF USA, INC.; LOCAL 1546 UNITED (W.D. Okla.) FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO- CLC, Defendants - Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _ Djuan Preston Williams, proceeding pro ..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DJUAN PRESTON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 18-6026
(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-00112-F)
SKF USA, INC.; LOCAL 1546 UNITED (W.D. Okla.)
FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-
CLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Djuan Preston Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the final judgment entered
after a jury reached a verdict against him on his hostile-work-environment claim
against his former employer, SKF USA, Inc. (SKF). We exercise jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I. Background
Mr. Williams, who is black, experienced the following incidents while
employed at SKF. On two occasions he heard racial epithets used by his coworkers,
one of which was directed at him. On another occasion he discovered a sticker with a
racial epithet on his car shortly after returning home from work. Another time he
saw a racial epithet scrawled on a bathroom stall at work. He reported each incident
to SKF. Unsatisfied with its responses, he brought this lawsuit, seeking to hold SKF
liable for the racially hostile work environment he endured before he stopped
showing up for work and was terminated.
Mr. Williams’s hostile-work-environment claim was tried to a jury, which
returned a verdict in favor of SKF. The district court allowed SKF to introduce
evidence of Mr. Williams’s post-employment arrest, detention, and conviction of a
felony to rebut his demand for emotional distress damages.
Mr. Williams moved for a new trial on the grounds that (1) the verdict was
against the weight of the evidence, (2) evidence about his felony conviction should
not have been admitted, and (3) SKF’s counsel made racially insensitive remarks
during Mr. Williams’s cross-examination and unjustifiably interrupted his counsel’s
closing statement.
The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.1
Mr. Williams’s opening brief seems to reiterate the arguments he made in his motion
1
The district court granted Mr. Williams’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal.
2
for a new trial.2 His cause is hindered substantially by the lack of a trial transcript.
In its answer, SKF urges that we dismiss the appeal due to Mr. Williams’s failure to
obtain a transcript. The deadline for filing a reply brief has passed, and Mr. Williams
has neither filed a reply brief nor ordered a transcript. We discern no basis for
reversing the district court’s judgment.
II. Analysis
Mr. Williams argues that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the
evidence and that a witness for SKF committed perjury, but he points to no specific
evidence to support these arguments. “Arguments inadequately briefed in the
opening brief are waived . . . .” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
144 F.3d 664, 679
(10th Cir. 1998). And without a trial transcript, we cannot review the evidence
before the trial court and must affirm. See Scott v. Hern,
216 F.3d 897, 912
(10th Cir. 2000) (“Where the record is insufficient to permit review we must
affirm.”).
Mr. Williams also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing
the jury to hear about his felony conviction. But he fails to support his argument
with any relevant legal authority and has therefore forfeited it. See Phillips v.
Calhoun,
956 F.2d 949, 953-54 (10th Cir. 1992) (“A litigant who fails to press
2
Because Mr. Williams is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his
pleadings, but we will not serve as his advocate by constructing arguments on his
behalf or by searching the record. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,
425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
3
appoint by supporting it with pertinent authority . . . forfeits the point.” (brackets and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Mr. Williams asserts that SKF’s counsel committed misconduct without
identifying any statements or conduct in support of this assertion. “When the party
asserting an issue fails to provide a record sufficient for considering that issue, the
court may decline to consider it.” 10th Cir. R. 10.3(B). Nor does Mr. Williams
support his contention that the all-white jury made up its mind before deliberating.
See Wilburn v. Mid-South Health Dev., Inc.,
343 F.3d 1274, 1281 (10th Cir. 2003)
(“We . . . will not consider issues that are raised on appeal but not adequately
addressed.”).
III. Conclusion
We affirm the district court’s judgment. The district court granted
Mr. Williams’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees, and we
remind him that he remains obligated to pay the filing fee in full. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1).
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
4