Edward Gilmore v. Eric Holder

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00789-LMB-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999557832]. [14-1726]

Appeal: 14-1726

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1726

EDWARD L. GILMORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, in his official capacity as Attorney General
of the United States,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00789-LMB-IDD)

Submitted:

February 27, 2015

Decided:

April 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Catherine M.A. Carroll, Eric Mahr, Amanda L. Major, Daniel
Aguilar, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Ayana N. Free, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1726

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Gilmore appeals from the district court’s entry
of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) in Defendant’s favor in
his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964,

as

amended,

42

U.S.C.

§§ 2000e—2000e-17

non-promotion on the basis of race.

(2012),

for

On appeal, Gilmore contends

that the district court reversibly erred in granting Defendant’s
post-trial Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law and
abused its discretion in excluding evidence.

We affirm.

Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that, in actions tried before a jury, a district court may grant
a motion for judgment as a matter of law against a party if the
party has been “fully heard” on an issue during trial and “a
reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary
basis to find for the party on that issue.”

We review the grant

or denial of a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law
de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
332

(4th

Cir.

Fontenot v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 736 F.3d 318,
2013);

404-05 (4th Cir. 1999).

Chaudhry

v.

Gallerizzo,

174

F.3d

394,

“Judgment as a matter of law is proper

when, without weighing the credibility of the evidence, there
can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment.”
Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 405 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“The movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the
2

Appeal: 14-1726

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

nonmoving party failed to make a showing on an essential element
of his case with respect to which he had the burden of proof.”
Singer

v.

Dungan,

45

F.3d

823,

827

(4th

Cir.

1995)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or
refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to
discriminate

against

compensation,

terms,

any

individual

conditions,

or

with

respect

privileges

of

to

his

employment,

because of such individual’s race.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Where,

evidence

as

here,

there

is

no

of

intentional

discrimination, claims under Title VII are analyzed under the
burden-shifting
Corp. v.
framework,

Green,

framework
411

the

U.S.

plaintiff

established
792,

802-07

bears

the

in

McDonnell

(1973).
initial

establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.
Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993).

Douglas

Under
burden

this
of

St. Mary’s
To do so, a

plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected
group; (2) there was a specific position for which he applied;
(3) he was qualified for that position; and (4) he was rejected
for the position under circumstances giving rise to an inference
of discrimination.
430 (4th Cir. 2004).

Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423,
Defendant conceded below that Gilmore had

established his prima facie case.

3

Appeal: 14-1726

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

Where the plaintiff makes such a showing, the burden shifts
to the defendant to produce evidence that “if believed by the
trier

of

fact,

discrimination

would

was

not

support
the

cause

a

finding

of

the

that

employment

Hicks, 509 U.S. at 507 (internal emphasis omitted).
burden

of

506-07.

production,

not

of

proof

or

unlawful
action.”
This is a

persuasion.

Id.

at

Review of the trial record makes clear that Defendant

produced evidence that, if believed by the trier of fact, would
support the conclusion that Gilmore was not promoted based on
race-neutral reasons.
If

the

defendant

meets

his

production

burden,

then

the

presumption created by the plaintiff’s prima facie case “drops
out of the picture,” and the burden shifts back to the plaintiff
to present evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude
that the reason proffered by the defendant was a pretext for
discrimination.

Id. at 511.

The plaintiff can prove pretext by

presenting evidence to show that the defendant’s explanation is
“unworthy

of

circumstantial
discrimination.

credence”
evidence

or

by

offering

sufficiently

other

forms

probative

of
of

Mereish v. Walker, 359 F.3d 330, 336 (4th Cir.

2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Ultimately, however,

the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he was the
victim of discrimination on the basis of his race.

4

Id.

Appeal: 14-1726

Doc: 33

On

Filed: 04/02/2015

appeal,

Gilmore

Pg: 5 of 6

asserts

that,

based

on

the

evidence

presented, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the
proffered rationales for his non-promotion, namely, his prior
performance

and

his

lack

of

supervisory

pretextual and unworthy of belief.
and

the

parties’

briefs,

we

experience,

were

After review of the record

reject

Gilmore’s

assertions

unsupported by the trial record and without merit.

as

He thus

fails to establish reversible error by the district court in its
grant of Defendant’s Rule 50(a) motion.
Gilmore also contends that the district court abused its
discretion
regarding

in

excluding

litigation

at

trial

relative

to

the

admission

rulings

of

resulting

testimony
from

the

decision of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia in Segar v. Civiletti, 508 F. Supp. 690 (D.D.C. 1981).
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed 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.

2011) (internal quotation omitted).

In determining whether an

evidentiary ruling is arbitrary and irrational, this court looks
at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, with
an eye toward “maximizing its probative value and minimizing its
prejudicial effect.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude after review of the record and the parties’
briefs that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
5

Appeal: 14-1726

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

excluding admission of the Segar litigation evidence.
has

not

suggested

that

Defendant

was

not

complying

Gilmore
with

the

Segar litigation rulings at the time of his non-promotion, and
the stipulated procedures in that litigation simply were not in
effect at the time of Gilmore’s non-promotion.

The district

court thus properly excluded admission of the evidence to ensure
the

jury

was

information.

not

considering

irrelevant

and

confusing

See United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 526

(4th Cir. 2008) (holding that district court did not abuse its
discretion

in

excluding

omitted

evidence

portions

that

were

“neither necessary to avoid misleading the jury or to place the
portions admitted into proper context”).
Accordingly,
We dispense

with

contentions

are

we
oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district
because

presented

in

court’s

judgment.

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6