MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge.

Krystal L. Boxum-Debolt and Lisa Anne Moore bring suit against Mike Kagay in his official capacity as the District Attorney for the Third Judicial District of Kansas, asserting claims for gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. From January 9 to 13, 2017, the Court conducted a jury trial which resulted in a verdict in favor of defendant. See Verdict (Doc. #149) filed January 13, 2017. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion For New Trial And Supporting Memorandum (Doc. #152) filed February 14, 2017. For reasons stated below, the Court overrules plaintiffs' motion.

Legal Standards

In deciding whether to grant a motion for new trial, the Court exercises broad discretion.1 See Unit Drilling Co. v. Enron Oil & Gas Co., 108 F.3d 1186, 1194 (10th Cir. 1997). The Court generally regards motions for new trial with disfavor and grants them only with great caution.2 See Franklin v. Thompson, 981 F.2d 1168, 1171 (10th Cir. 1992); Utility Trailer Sales of Kansas City, Inc. v. MAC Trailer Mfg., Inc., 734 F.Supp.2d 1210, 1216 (D. Kan. 2010). The party seeking to set aside a jury verdict must demonstrate prejudicial trial error or that the verdict is not based on substantial evidence. Anderson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 861 F.2d 631, 637 (10th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993); White v. Conoco, Inc., 710 F.2d 1442, 1443 (10th Cir. 1983). Where a party seeks a new trial based on insufficient evidence, the verdict must stand unless it is clearly, decidedly or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence. See May v. Interstate Moving & Storage Co., 739 F.2d 521, 525 (10th Cir. 1984). In reviewing a motion for new trial, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See Griffin v. Strong, 983 F.3d 1544, 1546 (10th Cir. 1993). The Court ignores errors that do not affect the essential fairness of the trial. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984).

Analysis

Plaintiffs urge the Court to order a new trial. Plaintiffs assert that at trial, the overwhelming weight of evidence demonstrated that the previous district attorney, Chadwick Taylor, fired them because of gender and/or in retaliation for opposition to gender and race discrimination. See Plaintiffs' Motion For A New Trial And Supporting Memorandum (Doc. #152) at 3-17. Also, plaintiffs assert that the Court committed prejudicial error by allowing defendant to present evidence regarding the personal staff exemption under Title VII3 and Moore's sexual orientation.4 See id. at 18-24.

Upon careful review of plaintiffs' arguments and the evidence presented at trial, the Court overrules plaintiffs' motion for substantially the reasons stated in defendant's Response To Motion For New Trial (Doc. #159) filed April 11, 2017. In particular, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the jury verdict. See id. at 2-7. Based on evidence presented at trial, the jury could reasonably conclude that Taylor decided to fire plaintiffs based on their distasteful emails and Sue Murphy's statements regarding plaintiffs' contribution to dysfunction in the victim/witness unit, and not because of discriminatory and/or retaliatory intent. See id. In addition, the Court finds that evidence regarding the personal staff exemption and Moore's sexual orientation was relevant to the issues at hand and did not unduly prejudice plaintiffs. See id. at 8-12.

IT THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion For New Trial And Supporting Memorandum (Doc. #152) filed February 14, 2017 is OVERRULED.