Filed: Apr. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1726 EDWARD L. GILMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC HOLDER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00789-LMB-IDD) Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1726 EDWARD L. GILMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC HOLDER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00789-LMB-IDD) Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1726
EDWARD L. GILMORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, in his official capacity as Attorney General
of the United States,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00789-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Catherine M.A. Carroll, Eric Mahr, Amanda L. Major, Daniel
Aguilar, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Ayana N. Free, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Gilmore appeals from the district court’s entry
of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) in Defendant’s favor in
his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e—2000e-17 (2012), for
non-promotion on the basis of race. On appeal, Gilmore contends
that the district court reversibly erred in granting Defendant’s
post-trial Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law and
abused its discretion in excluding evidence. We affirm.
Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that, in actions tried before a jury, a district court may grant
a motion for judgment as a matter of law against a party if the
party has been “fully heard” on an issue during trial and “a
reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary
basis to find for the party on that issue.” We review the grant
or denial of a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law
de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Fontenot v. Taser Int’l, Inc.,
736 F.3d 318,
332 (4th Cir. 2013); Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo,
174 F.3d 394,
404-05 (4th Cir. 1999). “Judgment as a matter of law is proper
when, without weighing the credibility of the evidence, there
can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment.”
Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 405 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“The movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the
2
nonmoving party failed to make a showing on an essential element
of his case with respect to which he had the burden of proof.”
Singer v. Dungan,
45 F.3d 823, 827 (4th Cir. 1995)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or
refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to
discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual’s race.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
Where, as here, there is no evidence of intentional
discrimination, claims under Title VII are analyzed under the
burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-07 (1973). Under this
framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. St. Mary’s
Honor Ctr. v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993). To do so, a
plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected
group; (2) there was a specific position for which he applied;
(3) he was qualified for that position; and (4) he was rejected
for the position under circumstances giving rise to an inference
of discrimination. Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423,
430 (4th Cir. 2004). Defendant conceded below that Gilmore had
established his prima facie case.
3
Where the plaintiff makes such a showing, the burden shifts
to the defendant to produce evidence that “if believed by the
trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful
discrimination was not the cause of the employment action.”
Hicks, 509 U.S. at 507 (internal emphasis omitted). This is a
burden of production, not of proof or persuasion.
Id. at
506-07. Review of the trial record makes clear that Defendant
produced evidence that, if believed by the trier of fact, would
support the conclusion that Gilmore was not promoted based on
race-neutral reasons.
If the defendant meets his production burden, then the
presumption created by the plaintiff’s prima facie case “drops
out of the picture,” and the burden shifts back to the plaintiff
to present evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude
that the reason proffered by the defendant was a pretext for
discrimination.
Id. at 511. The plaintiff can prove pretext by
presenting evidence to show that the defendant’s explanation is
“unworthy of credence” or by offering other forms of
circumstantial evidence sufficiently probative of
discrimination. Mereish v. Walker,
359 F.3d 330, 336 (4th Cir.
2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, however,
the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he was the
victim of discrimination on the basis of his race.
Id.
4
On appeal, Gilmore asserts that, based on the evidence
presented, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the
proffered rationales for his non-promotion, namely, his prior
performance and his lack of supervisory experience, were
pretextual and unworthy of belief. After review of the record
and the parties’ briefs, we reject Gilmore’s assertions as
unsupported by the trial record and without merit. He thus
fails to establish reversible error by the district court in its
grant of Defendant’s Rule 50(a) motion.
Gilmore also contends that the district court abused its
discretion in excluding at trial the admission of testimony
regarding litigation relative to rulings resulting from the
decision of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia in Segar v. Civiletti,
508 F. Supp. 690 (D.D.C. 1981).
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and we
“will only overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and
irrational.” United States v. Cole,
631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation omitted). In determining whether an
evidentiary ruling is arbitrary and irrational, this court looks
at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, with
an eye toward “maximizing its probative value and minimizing its
prejudicial effect.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude after review of the record and the parties’
briefs that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
5
excluding admission of the Segar litigation evidence. Gilmore
has not suggested that Defendant was not complying with the
Segar litigation rulings at the time of his non-promotion, and
the stipulated procedures in that litigation simply were not in
effect at the time of Gilmore’s non-promotion. The district
court thus properly excluded admission of the evidence to ensure
the jury was not considering irrelevant and confusing
information. See United States v. Lentz,
524 F.3d 501, 526
(4th Cir. 2008) (holding that district court did not abuse its
discretion in excluding omitted evidence portions that were
“neither necessary to avoid misleading the jury or to place the
portions admitted into proper context”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6