Taha v. Montell USA Inc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30105
Summary Calendar
KHALID TAHA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MONTELL USA INC,
doing business as Montell Polyolefins,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-76
October 15, 2001
Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Khalid Taha appeals an adverse jury verdict in his discrimination action against
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth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.
Montell USA, Inc., including the trial court’s rulings on proffered evidence. For the
reasons assigned, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Taha is Lebanese, Arabic, and his faith is Muslim. He was employed as a lab
operator by Montell from June of 1990 until his termination on December 31, 1998.
He contends that from the inception of his employment to the time of his termination,
he was subjected to repeated acts of discriminatory harassment aimed at his race,
religion, and national origin. The record before us contains contradictory evidence as
to every incident of claimed harassment. Taha cites a number of examples of alleged
harassment. Montell counters that the cited instances were merely cases of playful
banter, and that far from being the target of attacks, Taha welcomed and participated
in a give and take between himself and his co-workers. Montell adds that in those
instances of actual conflict, in which another Montell employee was at fault, the
company reprimanded the wrongdoer.
In early 1998, Taha filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC which, after
an investigation, resulted in a determination favorable to Taha. Following this
determination, Taha filed the instant complaint. At trial he sought admission of the
EEOC determination.
In preparation for trial, Taha took the deposition of Tony Iwobi, a co-worker.
2
He sought to introduce portions of this deposition respecting remarks made to Iwobi
related to his race and national origin. Montell countered that Iwobi’s testimony
referred only to instances in which he and other employees were joking around and that
Iwobi never complained to management about the incidents.
Montell successfully moved for exclusion of Iwobi’s testimony and the EEOC
determination. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Montell, finding that the
company had not discriminated against Taha on racial, religious, or national origin
grounds. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Taha complains of the trial court’s order excluding the EEOC determination and
Iwobi’s deposition. We review such evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and
may not set aside a verdict based on an error in the exclusion of evidence unless “such
action appears . . . inconsistent with substantial justice . . .”1 or has affected the
“substantial rights of the parties . . ..”2 Our review of the record, filings and arguments
of counsel, and the relevant authorities compels the conclusion that the order excluding
the evidence is not an adequate basis for reversible error.
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; see also Smith v. Isuzu Motors Ltd., 137 F.3d 859, 861 (5th
Cir. 1998).
2
Carter v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 716 F.2d 344, 349 (5th Cir. 1983).
3
We review a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence, and “[t]he verdict must
be upheld unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and so overwhelmingly in
favor of one party that reasonable men could not arrive at any verdict to the contrary.”3
We will not disturb the jury’s verdict merely because “there is evidence of such quality
and weight that reasonable and fair minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment
might reach different conclusions.”4 Our review of the record in light of relevant
authorities convinces us that the evidence and controlling law support the jury’s verdict.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is in all respects AFFIRMED.
3
Grandberry v. O’Barr, 866 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1988).
4
Id.
4