Maize v. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation
Filing
145
JUDGMENT in favor of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation against Martin O Maize, Sr re 141 Jury Verdict and denying Hawker Beechcraft's renewed motion for judgment as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/27/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
MARTIN O. MAIZE, SR.
v.
PLAINTIFF
No.4:09-cv-399-DPM
HAWKER BEECHCRAFT
CORPORATION
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The Court, in an earlier order, dismissed without prejudice Mr. Maize's
hostile-work-environment and section 1981 claims. Document No. 128. This
left three claims for trial: Mr. Maize's Title VII race-discrimination claim, his
ADEA age-discrimination claim, and his FMLA-retaliation claim. The parties
tried these claims to a twelve-person jury from 23 January 2012 to 26 January
2012. After deliberations, on 26 January 2012, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of Hawker Beechcraft on all three claims. The verdict forms are
attached and incorporated.
On the race-discrimination claim, the age-discrimination claim, and the
FMLA-retaliation claim, the Court enters judgment on the jury's verdict for
Hawker Beechcraftand against Mr. Maize. Mr. Maize's Amended Complaint,
Document No. 76, is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
During the trial, Hawker Beechcraft moved for judgment as a matter of
law on all claims at the end of Mr. Maize's case. The Court denied the
motion. Hawker Beechcraft renewed its motion at the end of all the proof.
The Court took the motion under advisement. In light of the jury's verdict,
the Court denies Hawker Beechcraft's renewed motion for judgment as moot.
So Ordered.
-2
RACE-DISCRIMINATION CLAIM
Question No.1: Has Mr. Maize proved that he was meeting H a $
EAs-Ps i.9.4fm E 0
RJVD'STI{J~• •1Aa
JAN 26 20"
Beechcraft's legitimate job expectations?
- - Yes
/No
~CLe
."
..
~
If you answered Question No.1 "Yes," then answer Question No.2. If you
answered Question No.1 "No," then your deliberations on this claim are
done and the Foreperson should sign this form.
Question No.2: Has Mr. Maize proved that his race was a motivating
factor in Hawker Beechcraft's decision?
- - Yes
_ _ No
If you answered Question No.2 "Yes," then answer Question No.3. If you
answered Question No.2 "No," then your deliberations on this claim are
done and the Foreperson should sign this form.
Maize v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
26 January 2012-Final Version
Question No.3: Has Hawker Beechcraft proved that it would have
discharged Mr. Maize regardless of his race?
--
Yes
_ _ No
If you answered Question No.3 "No," then answer Question No.4. If you
answered Question No.3 "Yes," then your deliberations on this claim are
done and the Foreperson should sign the form.
Question No.4: What are the amount of Mr. Maize's damages (as that
term is defined in Instruction Nos. 8 & 9) for Hawker Beechcraft's decision
to discharge him on the basis of his race?
Wages & fringe benefits:
$
Mental anguish, inconvenience,
and other non-monetary loss
$
~ i7,~P
Foreperson
Maize v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
I - 2.~-
_
_
jZ
3;00 pm
Date/Time
26 January 2012-Final Version
AGE-DISCRIMINATION CLAIM
Question No.1: Has Mr. Maize proved that he met the applicable job
qualifications?
- - Yes
V
No
If you answered Question No. 1 "Yes," then answer Question No.2. If you
answered Question No.1 "No," then your deliberations on this claim are
done and the Foreperson should sign this form.
Question No.2: Has Mr. Maize proved that but for his age, Hawker
Beechcraft would not have discharged him?
_ _ Yes
No
If you answered Question No.2 "Yes," then answer Question No.3. If you
answered Question No.2 "No," then your deliberations on this claim are
done and the Foreperson should sign this form.
Maize v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
26 January 2012-Final Version
Question No.3: What are the amount of Mr. Maize's damages (as that
term is defined in Instruction No. 11) for Hawker Beechcraft's decision to
discharge him on the basis of his age?
Wages & fringe benefits:
$-------
If you were instructed to answer, and actually answered, Question No.3,
then answer Question No.4.
Question No.4: Was Hawker Beechcraft's conduct "willful" as defined in
Instruction No. 12?
_ _ Yes
~
[7,
dFC
Foreperson
Maize v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
_ _ No
1- Z~ -/2.
Date/Time
26 January 2012-Final Version
FMLA-RETALIATION CLAIM
Question No.1: Has Mr. Maize proved that his decision to take
authorized FMLA leave was a motivating factor in Hawker Beechcraft's
decision to discharge him?
_ _ Yes
. / No
H you answered Question No.1 uYes," then answer Question No.2. If you
answered Question No. II/No," then your deliberations on this claim are
done and the Foreperson should sign this form.
Question No.2: Has Hawker Beechcraft proved that it would have
discharged Mr. Maize regardless of his decision to take authorized FMLA
leave?
--
Yes
_ _ No
H you answered Question No.2 UNo," then answer Question No.3. If you
answered Question No.2 uYes," then your deliberations on this claim are
done and the Foreperson should sign the form.
Maize v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
26 January 2012-Final Version
Question No.3: What are the amount of Mr. Maize's damages (as that
term is defined in Instruction No. 15) for Hawker Beechcraft's decision to
discharge him in retaliation for taking authorized FMLA leave?
Wages & fringe benefits:
$--------
If you were instructed to answer, and actually answered, Question No.3,
then answer Question No.4.
Question No.4: Did Hawker Beechcraft act in good faith, meaning did the
company reasonably believe that its actions complied with the Family and
Medical Leave Act?
- - Yes
c:::
Foreperson
Maize v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
'::
_
_ _ No
1- '2~ - J2
Date/Time
26 January 2012-Final Version
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?