Benjamin Wilburn v. Eastman Kodak Company

Second Circuit

Benjamin Wilburn v. Eastman Kodak Company

180 F.3d 475, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13946, 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 128, 1999 WL 420643

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 1999

DocketDocket 98-7858

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 180 F.3d 475 (Benjamin Wilburn v. Eastman Kodak Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benjamin Wilburn v. Eastman Kodak Company, 180 F.3d 475, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13946, 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 128, 1999 WL 420643 (2d Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued appellee, his former employer, for employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and related claims. The jury deliberated for approximately twenty minutes before finding appellee not liable. In denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, Judge Siragusa ruled that the length of the jury deliberations did not show that the jury had failed to follow his instruction to give “full and conscientious attention and consideration to the issues and evidence.” That ruling, which is the sole subject of this appeal, was correct.

Initially, the claim that the jury contemptuously or flippantly disregarded its duty in considering a matter submitted to it can be the proper subject of a motion for a new trial. The district court’s ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Segars v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 286 F.2d 767, 770-71 (4th Cir.1961); see also Paoletto v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 464 F.2d 976, 983 (3d Cir.1972) (court should not permit a jury verdict to stand where jury acted capriciously).

A jury is not required to deliberate for any set length of time. Brief deliberation, by itself, does not show that the jury failed to give full, conscientious or impartial consideration to the evidence. Ahern v. Scholz, 85 F.3d 774, 785-86 (1st Cir.1996); Paoletto, 464 F.2d at 983; Marx v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 321 F.2d 70, 71 (5th Cir.1963); Segars, 286 F.2d at 770.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued appellee, his former employer, for employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and related claims. The jury deliberated for approximately twenty minutes before finding appellee not liable. In denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, Judge Siragusa ruled that the length of the jury deliberations did not show that the jury had failed to follow his instruction to give “full and conscientious attention and consideration to the issues and evidence.” That ruling, which is the sole subject of this appeal, was correct.

Initially, the claim that the jury contemptuously or flippantly disregarded its duty in considering a matter submitted to it can be the proper subject of a motion for a new trial. The district court’s ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Segars v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 286 F.2d 767, 770-71 (4th Cir.1961); see also Paoletto v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 464 F.2d 976, 983 (3d Cir.1972) (court should not permit a jury verdict to stand where jury acted capriciously).

A jury is not required to deliberate for any set length of time. Brief deliberation, by itself, does not show that the jury failed to give full, conscientious or impartial consideration to the evidence. Ahern v. Scholz, 85 F.3d 774, 785-86 (1st Cir.1996); Paoletto, 464 F.2d at 983; Marx v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 321 F.2d 70, 71 (5th Cir.1963); Segars, 286 F.2d at 770.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F.3d 475, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13946, 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 128, 1999 WL 420643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-wilburn-v-eastman-kodak-company-ca2-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack