JOYCE v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Filing
101
ORDER denying 90 Motion for New Trial. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KATHLEEN JOYCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
POSTMASTER GENERAL,
UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:10-cv-00310-JAW
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Following adverse decisions on her age and sex discrimination claims against
the Postal Service from both the Court and a federal jury respectively, Kathleen
Joyce moves pro se for a new trial. Concluding that Ms. Joyce failed to meet the
legal standard for a new trial, the Court denies her motion.
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 26, 2010, Kathleen Joyce filed a complaint against the Postmaster
General of the United States Postal Service (Postal Service or USPS), claiming that
the Postal Service discriminated against her on the basis of her age, sex, and
disability when it did not hire her as a Mail Handler. Compl. for Damages and
Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1). On February 28, 2012, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of the Postal Service on the disability claim. Order on Mot. for
Summ. J. (ECF No. 35). On May 25, 2012, a federal civil jury issued a verdict
against Kathleen Joyce and in favor of the Postmaster General on the age and sex
discrimination claims. Jury Verdict Form (ECF No. 79). As the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA) does not provide the right to trial by jury in a claim
against the Postal Service, the jury verdict on the ADEA claim was advisory. FED.
R. CIV. P. 39(c); see Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 168 (1981); In re Young, 869
F.2d 158, 159 (2d Cir. 1989).
On January 25, 2013, the Court issued a
Memorandum Decision, setting forth its factual findings and legal conclusions, and
issuing a verdict against Ms. Joyce and in favor of the Postal Service on the ADEA
claim. Mem. Decision (ECF No. 88) (Mem. Decision); FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(1).
On February 27, 2013, Ms. Joyce, acting pro se, moved for a new trial. Mot.
for a New Trial (ECF No. 90) (Pl.’s Mot.). The Postal Service opposed Ms. Joyce’s
motion on March 15, 2013. Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for a New Trial (ECF
No. 91) (Def.’s Opp’n). Initially, Ms. Joyce did not file a reply to the Postal Service’s
opposition and on April 12, 1013, the Court issued an Order denying her motion for
new trial. Order Denying Mot. for New Trial (ECF No. 92). However, on April 24,
2013, Ms. Joyce wrote the Court explaining that she had not filed a reply because
she had never received a copy of the Postal Service’s response. Letter Mot. for Leave
to File Reply (ECF No. 98). On April 29, 2013, the Court granted Ms. Joyce’s motion
for leave to file reply and vacated its April 12, 2013 Order. Order Granting Mot. for
Leave to File Reply; Order Vacating Order Denying Mot. for New Trial (ECF No. 99).
On May 15, 2013, Ms. Joyce filed a reply. Resp. to Order Denying Mot. for New
Trial (ECF No. 100) (Pl.’s Reply).
2
II.
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
A.
Ms. Joyce’s Argument for New Trial
Ms. Joyce’s motion for new trial is based on her allegation that the “USPS did
not follow its own policy, allowed hearsay and defendants repeatedly lied and
perjured themselves when it fit their agenda.” Pl.’s Mot. at 1. To prove her point,
she attaches affidavits from two of the Postal Service’s trial witnesses, Ausilio
Lombardi and Arthur Lent, id. Attach. 1-4, and says those affidavits reveal that
these men lied during the trial.
Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.
She maintains that Robert
Burton, another Postal Service witness, contradicted himself during his trial
testimony. Id. at 2. Furthermore, asserting that she has “new information,” she
attaches the Postal Service’s Employee and Labor Relations Manual, saying that it
was “recently sent to me.” Id. at 2. She contends that the Manual demonstrates
that the Postal Service did not follow the terms of its own Manual during the hiring
process. Id. at 2-3. Finally, she attacks the proffered reasons for the Postal Service
decision, arguing that its justifications for its decisions were “totally fictitious and
against the law.” Id. at 3.
B.
The Postal Service’s Response
The Postal Service responds that the verdicts, both from the jury and the
Court, are supported by the evidence, that the evidence Ms. Joyce cited in her
motion is not new, would not be admissible, and would not change the result, and
that there was no false testimony. Def.’s Opp’n at 4-12.
3
C.
Ms. Joyce’s Reply
Again, Ms. Joyce reiterates her strongly-held view that the Postal Service
employees who testified at trial “provided false trial testimony.” Pl.’s Reply at 1.
She reasserts her contention that Ausilio Lombardi and Arthur Lent presented
“[n]ew lies to cover up old lies.” Id. She itemizes what she contends are the series
of misrepresentations Messrs. Lombardi and Lent made during their trial
testimony. Id. at 1-3.
Although she does not accuse Robert Burton of lying, she
says that Mr. Burton and she “differ on the recollection of the interview.” Id. at 3.
Ms. Joyce further claims that she has “new information”: “that in the hiring process
USPS uses the rules set forth in the ELM, at least one page was available at trial,
but others were not.” Id.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard for New Trial
Ms. Joyce’s motion for new trial is made pursuant to Rule 59. FED. R. CIV. P.
59. Under Rule 59, a court may grant a new trial on some or all of the issues
submitted to the jury “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been
granted in an action at law in federal court.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a)(1)(A). Similarly,
after a nonjury trial, a court may grant a rehearing “for any reason for which a
rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 59(a)(1)(B). When assessing a motion for a new trial following a jury verdict,
a trial judge has limited discretion:
A trial judge may not grant a motion for a new trial merely because he
or she might have reached a conclusion contrary to that of the jurors,
4
rather, the trial judge may set aside a jury’s verdict only if he or she
believes that the outcome is against the clear weight of the evidence
such that upholding the verdict will result in a miscarriage of justice.
Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 825 F.2d 593, 598-99 (1st Cir. 1987). In making
this ruling, a court is “free to independently weigh the evidence.” Jennings v. Jones,
587 F.3d 430, 436 (1st Cir. 2009). At the same time, as regards a jury verdict, a
“‘district judge cannot displace a jury’s verdict merely because he disagrees with it’
or because ‘a contrary verdict may have been equally . . . supportable.’” Id. (quoting
Ahern v. Scholz, 85 F.3d 774, 780 (1st Cir. 1996)). In other words, “trial judges do
not sit as thirteenth jurors, empowered to reject any verdict with which they
disagree.” Id. In short, to succeed Ms. Joyce must demonstrate that “the outcome is
against the clear weight of the evidence such that upholding the verdict will result
in a miscarriage of justice.” Webber v. Int’l Paper Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 160, 171 (D.
Me. 2004) (quoting Johnson v. Spencer Press of Me., Inc., 364 F.3d 368, 375 (1st Cir.
2004)).
B.
Analysis
First, none of the evidence that Ms. Joyce refers to in her motion is “new”
within the meaning of the law.
To constitute new evidence, Ms. Joyce must
establish “(1) the evidence was discovered after trial, (2) the exercise of due
diligence would not have resulted in the evidence being discovered at an earlier
stage, and (3) the newly discovered evidence is of such magnitude that production of
it earlier would likely have changed the outcome of the case.” Defenders of Wildlife
v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 929 (9th Cir. 1999). The four affidavits that Ms. Joyce
5
attached to her motion for new trial were prepared in 2008, well prior to trial, and
Ms. Joyce has made no showing that she was unaware of the affidavits or that she
could not have procured them before the 2012 jury trial in this case. As the Postal
Service points out, another similar excerpt of the Employee and Labor Relations
Manual was marked as Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 3 during trial, and Ms. Joyce has
made no showing that the excerpt she has attached to her motion was unavailable
to her at trial.1 Thus, to the extent Ms. Joyce is claiming she is entitled to a new
trial because of new evidence, her claim must fail.
Second, no doubt, Ms. Joyce maintains a heartfelt conviction that the Postal
Service employees who testified at trial were lying. She emphatically made this
argument both in her motion for new trial and in her reply. However, the Postal
Service witnesses, including Mr. Lombardi and Mr. Lent, were placed under oath,
subjected to cross-examination, and both the jury and the Court had a full
opportunity to evaluate their credibility. Ms. Joyce was represented extremely well
by her attorney; he marshaled the facts in her favor, disputed countervailing
evidence, and presented the best possible case.
Nevertheless, despite his
professional efforts and her own testimony in this case, both the jury and the Court
simply took a different view of the critical testimony. As the Court wrote, even
In her Reply, Ms. Joyce forcefully reiterates that the ELM (Employee and Labor Relations
Manual), one page of which was admitted at trial, is “new information.” Pl.’s Reply at 3. It is not.
As the Court has explained, to qualify as “new evidence”, the ELM must demonstrate that the
evidence was discovered after trial, that exercising due diligence, she could not have discovered it
before trial, and the new evidence was of such a magnitude that it likely would have changed the
outcome of the case. Defenders of Wildlife, 204 F.3d at 929. The fact that one page of the ELM was
admitted at trial compels the conclusion—absent some extraordinary circumstance not argued
here—that the result of the rest of the document would have been available at trial.
1
6
though Ms. Joyce demonstrated that the Postal Service’s “hiring process for Mail
Handler positions in 2008 was surprisingly irregular and ad hoc,” there was no
evidence that its decision not to hire her was related to her age. Mem. Decision at 1.
The jury verdict in favor of the Postal Service leads to a similar conclusion about
her sex discrimination claim.
There has been no miscarriage of justice in this case. Ms. Joyce had her day
in court, made her arguments, presented evidence, cross-examined opposing
witnesses, and did not sustain her burden of proof on either her age or sex
discrimination claims. Had Ms. Joyce been required to prove only that the Postal
Service’s hiring process was imperfect, she likely would have succeeded. However,
she was required to prove that the Postal Service discriminated against her because
of her age or gender, and she produced no evidence that the imperfections in the
Postal Service’s hiring process had anything at all to do with either age or gender.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Kathleen Joyce’s Motion for a New Trial (ECF No. 90).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of May, 2013
7
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?