In re: JOSE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ v. Fedex Freight East, Inc.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0706n.06
Case No. 08-2272
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
In re: JOSE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ,
Debtor,
--------------------------------------------------
STUART GOLD, TRUSTEE FOR, THE
ESTATE OF JOSE ANTONIO
RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDEX FREIGHT EAST, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; SUTTON and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Jose Rodriguez sued his former employer,
FedEx Freight East, Inc., alleging various claims of discrimination and retaliation on the basis of his
race, in violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws §§
37.2101 et seq. FedEx obtained summary judgment on all claims and, on appeal, we affirmed that
judgment except as to Rodriguez’s claim that FedEx had refused to promote him because of his
Hispanic accent. That claim we remanded for trial. In re Rodriguez, 487 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2007).
On remand, the case was tried to a jury and the jury returned a verdict for FedEx. Rodriguez
moved for JNOV, mistrial, a new trial, and an order striking certain testimony. He alleged errors
based on juror misconduct, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, defense counsel misconduct,

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 08-2272
Rodriquez v. FedEx
2
insufficiency of the evidence, and the court reporter’s misconduct. The district court considered the
motion and authored a thorough and meticulous 19-page opinion denying it. See Rodriguez v. FedEx
Freight East, Inc., 2008 WL 4155677, at *13 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 5, 2008) (unpublished). Rodriguez
moved for reconsideration and the district court denied that motion as well. See Rodriguez v. FedEx
Freight East, Inc., 2008 WL 4290180, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 17, 2008) (unpublished).
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the briefs and arguments on appeal, we find
that the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies that law
to the facts in the record. But we think it wise to address very briefly Rodriguez’s claim that the
district court erred in refusing to give the “mixed motive” jury instruction Rodriguez requested. The
district court properly instructed the jury using the Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions, including
the instructions explaining Michigan’s definition of employment discrimination and the burden of
proof for Michigan employment discrimination cases. Those instructions explicitly explained to the
jury that Rodriguez’s national origin “does not have to be the only reason, or even the main reason”
that FedEx did not promote him, but it did have to be “one of the reasons which made a difference
in determining whether or not to promote [him.]” Further, the instruction required the jury to find
in favor of Rodriquez if it found that FedEx failed to promote him and that his national origin was
one of the reasons for that failure. Rodriguez now claims that these instructions are contrary to our
opinion reversing the summary judgment for FedEx on this claim and remanding it for trial.
Rodriguez is mistaken. Our earlier opinion simply held that sufficient evidence had been presented
to raise a jury question as to whether FedEx had acted with a discriminatory motive, and that FedEx
had failed to demonstrate at the summary judgment stage that even if it had acted with

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 08-2272
Rodriquez v. FedEx
The National Lawyers Guild and the Michigan Association for Justice have each moved for permission to file 1
amicus briefs in this appeal. The National Lawyers Guild urges us to create a model jury instruction for civil cases
forbidding jurors from accessing the internet and the M ichigan Association for Justice urges us to make an investigatory
hearing mandatory any time a juror does access the internet. Because we, as a three-judge panel, are not empowered to
make these proclamations and because our disposition of this appeal pretermits these arguments, we DENY the motions.
3
discriminatory motive, it would nonetheless have taken the same action for legitimate reasons. The
court’s jury instructions comport with this legal framework even if they are not as specific as the
ones Rodriguez proposed. After reviewing the trial record, we find no error in the district court’s
providing the jury with the instructions that we have repeatedly found to be correct as a matter of
Michigan law.
We conclude that the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinions, we AFFIRM.1

-- 3 of 3 --