Partain v. Sta-Home Health
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00804-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-12-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Title VII of Civil Rights Act - Directed verdict - Exclusion of evidence - Pretext for discrimination - Cross-examination - Expert testimony - Sequestration - M.R.E. 615 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-31-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT GRANTED. Case Number: 251-98-895CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Deborah L. Partain |
MYLES A. PARKER
ALICIA KATE MARGOLIS |
||
| Appellee: | Sta-Home Health Agency of Jackson, Inc. | DONALD JAMES BLACKWOOD THOMAS L. KIRKLAND |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Title VII of Civil Rights Act - Directed verdict - Exclusion of evidence - Pretext for discrimination - Cross-examination - Expert testimony - Sequestration - M.R.E. 615 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Deborah Partain brought a claim against Sta-Home Health Agency of Jackson, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which she alleged that her termination was motivated by her gender and her pregnancy. Upon the close of Partain’s case-in-chief, Sta-Home moved for a directed verdict which was granted. Partain appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Directed verdict Partain argues that the court erred in granting Sta-Home’s motion for directed verdict. To make a prima facie case in a matter concerning Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the plaintiff must show (i) he or she is a member of a protected class, (ii) he or she was qualified for the position lost, (iii) he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (iv) that others similarly situated were more favorably treated. Partain has not proven all of the necessary elements of a prima facie case. Partain, as a pregnant woman, falls within a protected class. Partain also has suffered adverse employment action by losing her position with Sta-Home. Thus, factors one and three have arguably been met. Where Partain fails to meet her burden of proof is with the second factor, that she is qualified for the position lost, because she failed to meet an express requirement of her tuition agreement and employment contract. Partain also fails to show that others similarly situated were more favorably treated. In making the decision on which employees to retain and which employees to dismiss for the cutback, Sta-Home retained those which were most qualified for each position. Sta-Home felt that other nurses were more qualified for the available positions than Partain. In addition, Sta-Home presented five legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Partain’s dismissal: Partain’s release was in response to budget setbacks; Sta-Home followed a consistent procedure in making evaluations regarding which employees should be retained; Partain was in breach of her tuition agreement with Sta-Home; Sta-Home referenced specified problems Partain was having in handling her patient load; and Sta-Home presented evidence that Partain had difficulties in communicating with her supervisors regarding schedule changes. Issue 2: Exclusion of evidence Partain argues that the court erred in excluding evidence of pregnancy related comments made by the administrator of Sta-Home. In order for a remark to be used as evidence of a pretext for discrimination, the remark must demonstrate discriminatory animus and be made by a person primarily responsible for the adverse employment action or by a person with influence or leverage over the formal decision maker. The statement, which Partain alleges the administrator made, is one of concern for the well being of Partain and her child. Therefore, exclusion of the statements was proper. Issue 3: Evidentiary rulings Partain raises three evidentiary issues in which she argues the court erred. She argues that the court erred in not allowing cross-examination of Gaines regarding the performance appraisal of Thorp as well as occasions where Partain contends she had to help Thorp in his work. However, there was no relevance to this testimony, as throughout the trial it was stated repeatedly that there was never a direct comparison made between Partain and Thorp, all nurses were compared collectively. Partain also argues that the court erred because it sustained Sta-Home’s objections to her failure to lay a predicate during questioning of her expert witness regarding the 192 hour clinical work requirement. However, from the testimony, it appears as though the ultimate opinion sought was elicited. Partain also argues that the court erred in holding that there was no violation of the rule of sequestration. M.R.E. 615 was drafted to prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony to conform with one another. Though the case was discussed generally, the record is devoid of a showing that any witness had discussed his or her personal testimony with the others. The trial court allowed Partain to examine the witnesses regarding any potential violation and properly found that no violation had occurred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
