Mann v. Hutchinson Pub. Sch., U.S.D. 308

Mann v. Hutchinson Pub. Sch., U.S.D. 308

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On September 25, 1998, the court took up argument relating to the defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Patricia K. Mann has alleged that she was the victim of illegal gender discrimination and retaliation at the hands of defendant Hutchinson Public Schools, U.S.D. No. 308. This matter was previously presented to a jury, which was unable to render a verdict on Mann's claim of retaliation. Following the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, the court granted defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 50 on the claim of gender discrimination.

Defendants have now moved to dismiss the remaining retaliation claim. (Dkt. No. 66). The plaintiff initially contends the motion is untimely under either Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 59 or 60. The court cannot find either [*2]  rule applicable. There has been no "judgment" or "final judgment" in the case which would trigger either of the specified rules or would narrow the ability of the court to grant the requested relief. The court finds, in its discretion, that the interests of justice support consideration of defendant's motion. The court also finds that, when that motion is considered, defendant's motion should be granted.

In her response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff correctly notes that ] it is not necessary that a plaintiff, to possess a valid claim of retaliation, also demonstrate a valid case of discrimination. See Archuleta v. Colorado Dept. of Institutions, 936 F.2d 483, 487 (10th Cir. 1991), citing Romero v. Union Pacific Rd., 615 F.2d 1303, 1307 (10th Cir. 1980). The court is not determining that plaintiff's retaliation claim fails "merely" or "automatically" because her discrimination claim was ultimately unsuccessful.

Rather, the plaintiff has failed to prove essential elements of both her discrimination and retaliation claims. Specifically, as the court concluded in the hearing granting defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, there was nothing "in the evidence that [*3]  indicates that Mrs. Mann was discriminated against … on the basis of gender." Implicit in this determination is the conclusion that there is no rational basis for inferring the defendant's actions were motivated by gender-based animus, and that no rational fact-finder take such a view of the evidence. Having independently reviewed the evidence submitted during trial, the court must reach the same conclusion.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.