Eric Reiber v. City of Pullman

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs Eric Reiber (“Reiber”) and his co-Plaintiffs Rudy Fisher, Christopher Wehrung, Christopher Volk, John Golln-ick, and Jason Wilkins (“co-Plaintiffs”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs, firefighters with the Pullman City Fire Department, filed this lawsuit against the City of Pullman and several individuals (collectively “Defendants”) stemming from the investigation of a hostile work environment complaint against Reiber and a complaint of retaliation against Reiber and his co-Plaintiffs. As a result of the investigations, Plaintiffs were subject to various forms of discipline. The district court granted summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional and state law tort claims. Plaintiffs’ retaliation claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Washington Law against Discrimination (“WLAD”), Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210 , proceeded to trial. After the jury returned a verdict 1 in favor of Reiber under the WLAD and in favor of his co-Plaintiffs under both statutes,…

concurring in part, and dissenting in part:

I am compelled to dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the district court’s judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment dismissing Reiber’s defamation-related claims. 1 I would reinstate the jury’s verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs and allow the defamation-related claims against Reiber to proceed to trial.

Vacating a jury verdict is no small matter. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149-51 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1021-22 (9th Cir.2008) (“The jury is the ‘constitutional tribunal provided for trying facts in courts of law.’ ”) (quoting Berry v. United States, 312 U.S. 450, 453 , 61 S.Ct. 637 , 85 L.Ed. 945 (1941)). We must ask whether the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “permits only one conclusion and that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s verdict.” Martin v. Cal. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 560 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2009). Although the majority cites this rule, I disagree with its application of the standard.

The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, as we are…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC REIBER; et al., No. 13-35370

Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00129-TOR

v.

MEMORANDUM*

THE CITY OF PULLMAN, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2014 Seattle, Washington

Before: PAEZ, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs Eric Reiber (“Reiber”) and his co-Plaintiffs Rudy Fisher,

Christopher Wehrung, Christopher Volk, John Gollnick, and Jason Wilkins (“co-

Plaintiffs”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s grant of judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and partial

summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs, firefighters with the

Pullman…