On September 4, 2014, in Connelly v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that allegedly inconsistent jury verdicts cannot be challenged in a motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50 (No. 13-14032, (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2014)).

Plaintiff Darryl Connelly worked for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (Transit Authority) for several years. Connelly, a white male, was fired soon after the Transit Authority hired Cheryl King, a black female, as his supervisor. Connelly then filed suit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Transit Authority and King alleging racial discrimination and retaliation for protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before trial, the district court granted summary judgment dismissing Connelly’s racial discrimination claims.

At trial, the jury returned verdicts against the Transit Authority for retaliation under Title VII, but in favor of King. The Transit Authority then filed a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the jury verdicts were inconsistent, and that judgment should be entered in favor of both defendants because the Transit Authority could be found liable only if King were also liable. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of both defendants.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment in favor of the Transit Authority and remanded for the district court to reinstate the jury’s verdict against the Transit Authority. The court held that FRCP 50 requires a district court to consider only the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the verdict. When ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a district court may not consider either:

The district court therefore erred when it entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Transit Authority based on the allegedly inconsistent jury verdicts.

Practitioners in the Eleventh Circuit should be aware that any claimed inconsistency in a jury’s verdict cannot be raised in a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. Instead, counsel should raise any alleged inconsistencies in a new-trial motion, or risk losing the opportunity to challenge the jury’s verdict in a post-trial motion or on appeal.