Roger Barber v. JTEKT Automotive Virginia, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cv-00441-GEC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999059940]. [12-1734]

Appeal: 12-1734

Doc: 35

Filed: 03/11/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1734

ROGER BARBER; EDDIE SIMMONS, JR.,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
ERIC GODFREY; RYAN YOUNG, for themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JTEKT AUTOMOTIVE VIRGINIA, INC.; JTEKT NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00441-GEC)

Submitted:

February 28, 2013

Decided:

March 11, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry N. Grimes, TERRY N. GRIMES, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellants. Thomas M. Winn, III, Victor O. Cardwell, Frank K.
Friedman, Frank H. Hupfl, WOODS ROGERS PLC, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Appeal: 12-1734

Doc: 35

Filed: 03/11/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-1734

Doc: 35

Filed: 03/11/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
After a trial, a federal jury found for the Appellees
on the Appellants’ discrimination claims, and the district court
entered judgment in accordance with the verdict.

The Appellants

argue on appeal that the district court erred in allowing the
Appellees to use one of their peremptory strikes to strike the
only African-American juror from the venire and in admitting
evidence containing

hearsay

at

trial.

For

the

reasons

that

follow, we affirm.
The

Appellants

first

challenge

the

district

court’s

rejection of their challenge to the Appellees’ use of one of
their

peremptory

strikes

juror from the venire.

to

strike

the

only

African-American

Before the district court, the Appellees

stated that they had struck the juror because he was the only
member of the venire without an education above grade school and
the district court found this to be a legitimate, race-neutral
explanation for use of the strike.
The

Equal

Protection

Clause

prevents

racial

discrimination in the exercise of peremptory strikes at a civil
jury trial.

See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S.

614, 618-28 (1991); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79
(1986).

When a party makes a Batson challenge, that party must

first establish a prima facie case that the strike was made on
the basis of race; the burden then shifts to the striking party
3

Appeal: 12-1734

to

Doc: 35

provide

Filed: 03/11/2013

a

Pg: 4 of 5

non-discriminatory

reason

for

the

use

of

the

strike; the challenging party must then show that the proffered
reasons

are

pretextual

and

that

intentional discrimination.

the

other

party

engaged

in

United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d

358, 380 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), petition for cert.
filed (U.S. Dec. 21, 2012) (No. 12-7923).

Further,“[w]e accord

great deference to the district court’s finding as to whether a
peremptory

challenge

was

exercised

for

a

prohibited,

discriminatory reason; we review that finding for clear error.”
United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 377 (4th Cir. 2010).

This

is so because the “outcome of a typical Batson challenge turns
largely on an evaluation of credibility and whether counsel’s
race-neutral
believed,”

explanation
a

for

determination

a
that

especially well suited to make.”
Applying

these

standards

and

particular
the

challenge

“district

court

is
is

Dinkins, 691 F.3d at 379.

having

thoroughly

reviewed

the

record, we conclude that the district court did not commit clear
error in accepting the Appellees’ reason for striking the juror.
The

Appellants

next

argue

that

the

court

erred

in

admitting in evidence an email that contained hearsay statements
by a non-testifying witness.

“We review a trial court’s rulings

on the admissibility of evidence 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.
4

Appeal: 12-1734

2011)

Doc: 35

(internal

Filed: 03/11/2013

quotation

Pg: 5 of 5

marks

omitted).

We

will

not

“set

aside or reverse a judgment on the grounds that evidence was
erroneously admitted unless justice so requires or a party’s
substantial rights are affected.”

Creekmore v. Maryview Hosp.,

662 F.3d 686, 693 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 61).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the court did not
commit reversible error in admitting the evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5