CourtCases2010

I must respectfully dissent i in harris the supreme

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: orseplaying," and Ford felt [*25] that Banta "didn't intentionally mean to hurt someone." In short, neither Reed, Hopper or Banta threatened random, plant-wide violence. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the judiciary to substitute its judgment for that of management. See Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 960 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that court cannot sit as a "super-personnel department"); Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991) (same); see also Manzer, 29 F.3d at 1085 (holding that "'just-cause' arguments must not be allowed to creep into an employment discrimination lawsuit"). Smith failed to show that he was treated differently than similarly-situated, non-minority employees. The district court erred in admitting this evidence. In sum, there was insufficient evidence to find that Defendants proffered reason for firing Smith was pretextual. Given the "complete absence of proof" on the material issue of racial animus in this case, the district court should have granted Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, because the remaining, properly admitted evidence is insufficient to shoulder Smith's [*26] burden of proof, we now direct an entry of judgment as a matter of law for Defendants. See Weisgram v. Marley Co.,, U.S. , 120 S. Ct. 1011, 145 L. Ed. 2d 958, 68 U.S.L.W. 4122, 2000 WL 196662, at *8 (February 22, 2000). III. Given this outcome, Defendants' remaining claims regarding attorney's fees and corporate interrelationship are moot. IV. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment in favor of Smith is REVERSED, and judgment as a matter of law is entered for Defendants. DISSENTBY: BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR. DISSENT: BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Chief Judge, dissenting. We have here the question of whether Smith provided sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that a racially hostile 107 work environment was present at the plant and that race was a substantially motivating factor in Adcom's decision to terminate Smith. The majority holds that such evidence of racism, if exa...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online