3 Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. §§ 170.21, 171.26 (6th ed. 2013); Defendant’s Authority: 913 F. Supp. 2d at 1059; 389 F.3d at 1134; 527 U.S. at 535. Owens, Exum, Kolstad, Plaintiff’s Objection: This instruction does not accurately state applicable law, pursuant to 2008 WL 4527711 (D. Colo. 2008), citing Whitfield v. Potter, Reeves v. Sanderson 530 U.S. 133, 142-143,120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), Plumbing Products, Inc., and 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, (1993). Furthermore, this is a termination case, not merely a negative effect case. This instruction does not reflect nor accurately set forth the law as established in Univ. of No. 12-484, 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2522, 2525 (June Tx. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 24, 2013), as an employee need only prove the existence of an impermissible motivating factor in order to prevail. at 2525. Id. DEFENDANT’S INSTRUCTION 2.5 SIMILARLY SITUATED Mr. Finn claims that his supervisor, Jennifer Fowler, treated him differently than she treated another employee, Tony Murphy. Under the law, in order to consider Ms. Fowler’s treatment of Mr. Finn compared to how she treated Mr. Murphy, you must first determine that: Mr. Finn and Mr. Murphy are situated”; “similarly Mr. Finn and Mr. Murphy violated work rules of comparable seriousness; and,
Defendant’s Authority: 3 Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. §§ 170.21, 171.26 (6th ed. 2013); Owens, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 1059; Exum, 389 F.3d at 1134; Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535. Plaintiff’s Objection: This instruction does not accurately state applicable law, pursuant to Whitfield v. Potter, 2008 WL 4527711 (D. Colo. 2008), citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-143,120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), and St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). Furthermore, this is a termination case, not merely a negative effect case. This instruction does not reflect nor accurately set forth the law as established in Univ. of Tx. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, No. 12-484, 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2522, 2525 (June 24, 2013), as an employee need only prove the existence of an impermissible motivating factor in order to prevail. Id. at 2525. DEFENDANT’S INSTRUCTION 2.5 SIMILARLY SITUATED Mr. Finn claims that his supervisor, Jennifer Fowler, treated him differently than she treated another employee, Tony Murphy. Under the law, in order to consider Ms. Fowler’s treatment of Mr. Finn compared to how she treated Mr. Murphy, you must first determine that: Mr. Finn and Mr. Murphy are “similarly situated”; Mr. Finn and Mr. Murphy violated work rules of comparable seriousness; and,
JLK_JuryInstuctionsCivil_Fall13.docx