Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Marsh v. Coleman Co.

United States District Court for the District of Kansas · 1991 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJudgment as a matter of lawNew trialJury verdict reviewJuror misconductFRCP 50FRCP 59ADEA

Facts

Plaintiff was laid off during a reduction in force and claimed the termination was motivated by age discrimination. The evidence showed that plaintiff had superior qualifications for positions that remained at the time of the reduction in force or became available in the following months, and that younger persons were treated more favorably in filling those positions. There was also evidence that the company, under Sheldon Coleman Jr., aspired to a younger image. After the jury found for plaintiff under the ADEA, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the damages awards, and the fairness of the trial.

Issue

Whether the court should overturn the jury's ADEA verdict and damages award by granting judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively grant a new trial based on alleged evidentiary and instructional errors and alleged juror misconduct. The case also presented whether pension payments should reduce backpay for purposes of calculating prejudgment interest and whether uncertainty about future wages required disturbing the damages award.

Rule

Judgment as a matter of law may be granted only when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party; the evidence must be viewed most favorably to that party, without weighing credibility, and the motion may be granted only if the evidence points but one way. In an ADEA case, a plaintiff need not produce direct evidence of discriminatory intent; if the employer's stated reasons are shown to be pretextual, the factfinder may infer discrimination. A new trial based on voir dire responses requires proof that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question and that a truthful answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.

🔒

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 Alvarez, age 61, was let go during a workforce reduction at Prairie Basin Tools, a fictional manufacturer in Wichita, Kansas. At trial, she showed that two younger employees with weaker evaluations were kept in comparable jobs, and several managers gave inconsistent explanations for why she was not retained; the employer insists its witnesses were more credible and moves for judgment as a matter of law after the jury finds for Alvarez.

How should the court rule on the employer's Rule 50 motion?

Explanation. Under the Rule 50 standard applied in the opinion, judgment as a matter of law is proper only when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party and the evidence points only one way. The court must not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations, but instead must give the verdict winner all reasonable inferences. Evidence that younger, less-qualified workers were retained and that the employer's explanations were inconsistent is enough for a reasonable jury to find pretext and discrimination.