Nichols, et al v. City of Canton MS

*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-60793
_____________________
LINDA NICHOLS; TANYATAMEIKA JACKSON;
BENNIE SMITH; VICKI MCNEIL,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
CITY OF CANTON, MISSISSIPPI; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CITY OF CANTON, MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No.3:00-CV-110-LN
_________________________________________________________________
March 18, 2003
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After consideration of the briefs, the oral arguments, and
the record in this case and, in particular, after having reviewed
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002),
we are convinced that the plaintiffs’ claims were not time-barred
and that the jury’s finding of liability in this case should not

-- 1 of 2 --

be disturbed. We agree with the appellants that in some
instances the district court allowed unfairly prejudicial
evidence against the city into the record. We have thoroughly
considered these evidentiary errors and have concluded that they
were harmless in the light of the overwhelming relevant evidence
that supports the verdict. Finally, given the egregious nature
of the conduct of Canton Police Chief Milton Luckett and the
severe and pervasive hostile work environment that his actions
created, we are slightly surprised that the amount of the damage
awards was no greater – the surprisingly low amount perhaps
attributable to the skill of the city’s attorneys. Nevertheless,
based on our somewhat-varying precedents upholding damage awards,
we cannot say that the jury’s award of damages was unreasonable.
Consequently, the jury verdict and the judgment of the district
court are, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --