Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District

Filing 229

JUDGMENT : For the reasons explained in the Court's post-trial order, the Court enters judgment on the jury's verdict for the District and against Dr. Humphries on her § 1981/§ 1983 Equal Protection claims and her duplicative clai ms under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Notwithstanding the verdict, the Court enters judgment for the District and against Dr. Humphries onher breach of-contract claims. The Court dismisses Dr. Humphries's third Amended and Supplemented Complaint, with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/5/11. (hph)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

DONNA HUMPHRIES

v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:06-cv-606-DPM

PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT
The parties tried the validity of the District's affirmative action policies
to the bench from 25 August 2010 until 26 August 2010. With the record
remaining open on validity, the parties tried the discrimination and contract
claims to a twelve-person jury from 29 November 2010 until 3 December 2010.
After deliberations, the jury found that race through the District's affirmative
action policies was a motivating factor in the District's decision to not
promote Dr. Humphries. The jury also found, however, that the District
would have made the same decision regardless of Dr. Humphries's race. On
breach of contract, the jury awarded Dr. Humphries $63,244.00. The verdict,
the jury's answers to seven interrogatories, is attached and incorporated.

Before her 2008 appeal, Dr. Humphries abandoned her age
discrimination claims. Document No. 98, at 1; Document No. 117, at 2 n.1. She
also abandoned her Title VII claims after remand and before trial. Document
No. 185; Document No. 187, at 1. These voluntary dismissals left the § 1981/

§ 1983 race claims, the duplicative claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act,
and the breach-of-contract claims for trial.
For the reasons explained in the Court's post-trial order, Document No.
228, the Court enters judgment on the jury's verdict for the District and
against Dr. Humphries on her § 1981/§ 1983 Equal Protection claims and her
duplicative claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Notwithstanding the
verdict, the Court enters judgment for the District and against Dr. Humphries
on her breach-of-contract claims. The Court dismisses Dr. Humphries's third
Amended and Supplemented Complaint, Document No. 178-2, with prejudice.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2­

Case 4:06-cv-00606-DPM Document 209

Filed 12/03/10 Page 1 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.1

Instructions: If you answer this Interrogatory "Yes," then you must skip to
Interrogatory No.3.

If you answer "No," then you must continue to

Interrogatory No.2.

Interrogatory No.1:

Has Dr. Humphries proved that her race was a

motivating factor - through the District's affirmative action policies - in the
District's decision to not promote her?

/Yes

_ _ No

(Mark an "X" in the-appropriate space)

Court's Final Interrogatories

1

4:06-cv-606 Humphries v. P.C.S.S.D

Case 4:06-cv-00606-DPM Document 209

Filed 12/03/10 Page 2 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.2

Instructions: If you answer this Interrogatory "Yes," then you must continue
to Interrogatory No.3.

If you answer "No," then you must skip to

Interrogatory No.6.

Interrogatory No.2:

Has Dr. Humphries proved that her race was a

motivating factor - apart from the District's affirmative action policies - in the
District's decision to not promote her?

_ _ Yes

_ _ No

(Mark an "X" in the appropriate space)

Court's Final Interrogatories

2

4:06-cv-606 Humphries v. P.C.S.S.D

Case 4:06-cv-00606-DPM Document 209

Filed 12/03/10 Page 3 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.3

Instructions: If you answer this Interrogatory "Yes," then you must skip to
Interrogatory No.6. If you answer this Interrogatory "No" and you answered
Interrogatory No. I "Yes," then you must continue to Interrogatory No.4. If
you answer this Interrogatory "No" and you answered Interrogatory No.2
"Yes," then you must skip to Interrogatory No.5.

Interrogatory No.3: Has the District proved that it would have decided not
to promote Dr. Humphries regardless of her race?

K

Yes

No

(Mark an "X I1 in the appropriate space)

Court's Final Interrogatories

3

4:06-cv-606 Humphries v. P.C.S.S.D

Case 4:06-cv-00606-DPM Document 209

Filed 12/03/10 Page 4 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.4

Instructions: After you answer this Interrogatory, skip to Interrogatory No.6.

Interrogatory No.4: State the amount of Dr. Humphries's damages (as that
term is defined in Instructions Nos. 14 & 15) for the District's decision to not
promote her between 2003 and 2007.

$

Wages and Fringe Benefits:

_

Mental anguish, inconvenience,

$

and other nonmonetary loss:

Court's Final Interrogatories

4

_

4:06-cv-606 Humphries v. P.C.S.S.D

Case 4:06-cv-00606-DPM Document 209

Filed 12/03/10 Page 5 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.5

Instructions: After you answer this Interrogatory, continue to Interrogatory
No.6.

Interrogatory No.5: State the amount of Dr. Humphries's actual damages as
that term is defined in Instruction Nos. 14 & 15 for the District's decision to
not promote Humphries between 2004 and 2007.

Wages and Fringe Benefits:

$

_

Mental anguish, inconvenience,

and other nonmonetary loss:

Court's Final Interrogatories

$

5

_

4:06-cv-606 Humphries v. P.C.S.S.D

Case 4:06-cv-00606-DPM Document 209

Filed 12/03/10 Page 6 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.6

Instructions: If you answer this Interrogatory "Yes," then continue to
Interrogatory No.7. If you answer "No", then you must skip to the end of
this form and have your foreperson sign and date it because you have
finished your deliberations.

Interrogatory No.6: Has Dr. Humphries proved that the District breached its
contract with her?

_ _ No
(Mark an "X" in the appropriate space)

Court's Final Interrogatories

6

4:06-cv-606 Humphries v. P.C.S.SD

Case 4:06-cv-00606-DPM Document 209

Filed 12/03/10 Page 7 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.7
Interrogatory No.7: State the amount of damages (as that term is defined in
Instruction No. 24) that Dr. Humphries sustained from the District's breach
of the parties' contract: $

3'¥J 32>ZJ

fJy; PiS =: tle cy.4i::y .eo~~

fiA.e- c-A 7 T6"R~r
Sign and date this form because your deliberations have ended.

Date::3~€C 2010
Court's Final Interrogatories

7

4:06-cv-606 Humphries v. P.C.S.S.D

Fees
­