|
|
Cummings v. Commonwealth11/1/2004
the most qualified, available candidate, Dr. William Francis Keating, who accepted the position on a temporary basis and subsequently became a tenured professor.
Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that the University demonstrated a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for not hiring Cummings for a tenure track position, i.e., Cummings' deficiencies as a scholar. Because Cummings failed to present evidence sufficient to prove discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the University. Thereafter, Cummings' requests for post-trial relief were denied, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Cummings asserts that the evidence, taken as a whole, does not support the trial court's judgment in favor of the University. Cummings maintains that the University's stated reason for not offering him a tenure track position, lack of scholarly growth, was pretextual. It was offered only to mask its real reason, which was Cummings' gender. Cummings contends that his application was reviewed in the midst of "upheaval [in the University that] manifested itself in the form of animosity between men and women who were existing professors in that Department" and it was "not a good time to hire men." Cummings' Brief at 8, 10. Cummings maintains that his evidence showed that the University's explanation for not hiring him was "festooned with inconsistencies" and, thus, was not plausible. Cummings' Brief at 10. Accordingly, Cummings requests this Court to reverse the trial court's denial of his post-trial motions.
The burden is high upon one who seeks to reverse a trial court's decision to deny a request for a new trial or for judgment non obstante verdicto (n.o.v.). A new trial will be granted only if the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case. Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc., 725 A.2d 836, 841 (Pa. Super. 1999). An abuse of discretion will not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion; it requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous. Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction Co., Inc., 540 Pa. 409, 658 A.2d 341 (1995). A judgment n.o.v. should only be entered in a clear case, with any doubt resolved in favor of the verdict winner. Moure v. Raeuchle, 529 Pa. 394, 402, 604 A.2d 1003, 1007 (1992). A judgment n.o.v. is appropriate where the evidence, and all inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Kiker, 742 A.2d at 1085. With these principles in mind, we consider whether the trial court committed an error of law that would have changed the outcome of the case and whether the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's judgment in favor of the University. This req
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Show All Case Laws Pennsylvania PEO
|