Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

MacArthur v. University of Texas Health Center

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAppellate reviewPreservation of errorJudgment as a matter of lawAbandonment on appealTitle VII retaliationabandonmentwaiver

Facts

MacArthur, a research laboratory technician at UTHC, alleged that Painter retaliated against her after she reported an incident in which he yelled at a female employee. The incidents relevant to the appeal involved Painter's response to MacArthur's conduct in an incubator episode, a blood-use episode, and radiation-handling problems that led to suspension of her radiation privileges, demotion, and a salary reduction. Although MacArthur had pleaded a Title VII retaliation claim, at trial she argued only First Amendment retaliation, sex discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the jury was not instructed on Title VII retaliation and no interrogatory on that claim was submitted. The jury found only for MacArthur on intentional infliction of emotional distress against Painter.

Issue

Whether MacArthur could obtain appellate review of evidentiary rulings tied solely to a Title VII retaliation claim that she failed to submit to the jury, and whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict that Painter intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Also at issue was whether Painter's failure to renew his Rule 50 motion at the close of all evidence barred appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency.

Rule

A party abandons a claim when, despite pleading it, the party fails to argue it to the jury, fails to secure jury instructions or interrogatories on it, and fails to object to its omission; such a claim is not embodied in the judgment and is not before the appellate court. Issues embodied in the judgment are likewise abandoned on appeal if not briefed. A Rule 50(b) sufficiency challenge may still be reviewed where technical noncompliance is excused because the purposes of the rule were satisfied. Under Texas law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causes emotional distress, and results in severe distress; mere employment disputes, reprimands, criticism, demotion, transfer, or discipline are not enough.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Flores sued Lakeview Transit Clinic in El Paso, alleging sex discrimination, statutory retaliation, and a state tort claim. At trial, her lawyer discussed only sex discrimination and the tort claim in opening and closing, requested no retaliation instruction or verdict question, and said nothing when the court submitted the case to the jury without any retaliation issue.

On appeal, Nina argues that the trial judge wrongly excluded comparator evidence relevant only to her retaliation theory. How should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. A pleaded claim is not before the appellate court when the party fails to argue it to the jury, fails to obtain instructions or interrogatories on it, and fails to object to its omission. Under the majority opinion, such a claim is treated as abandoned in the district court and is not embodied in a judgment entered pursuant to the jury verdict. So evidentiary complaints tied only to that omitted claim cannot be reviewed. (Derived from MacArthur v. University of Texas Health Center (n.d.).)