Skeldon v. Ashcroft , 110 F. App'x 415 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit October 8, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30462
SABRINA A. SKELDON
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(99-CV-1177)
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sabrina Skeldon appeals that portion of the district court’s
final judgment that denied her motion for attorney’s fees, costs,
and other equitable relief despite the jury’s verdict in her favor
on her hostile work environment claim. The Government appeals that
portion of the district court’s final judgment that denied the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
Government’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law as to
Skeldon’s hostile work environment claim. We review Skeldon’s
challenge to the district court’s post-verdict denial of her motion
for attorney’s costs, fees, and equitable relief for an abuse of
discretion. Brady v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d 691, 716 (5th Cir.
1998) (citations omitted). While our review of the district
court’s denial of the Government’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as
a matter of law is de novo, see Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336
F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2003), we will only overturn a jury verdict
when the evidence points “so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor
of one party that the court believes that reasonable [jurors] could
not arrive at any contrary conclusion.” Baltazor v. Holmes, 162
F.3d 368, 373 (5th Cir. 1998)(quoting Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d
365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969)(en banc)).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Skeldon has
failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in
denying her motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and equitable
relief. We also conclude that sufficient evidence exists to
support the jury’s verdict on Skeldon’s hostile work environment
claim. Accordingly, the district court’s final judgment is
AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
2