Plaintiff Sterling Owens sued the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims under Title VII for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial, and the jury found the defendant not liable on all counts. Owens appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial and motion for a new trial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Sterling Owens, an African American electric “troubleman lineman,” worked for the Wyandotte County, Kansas Board of Public Utilities (BPU) beginning in 2013. BPU had a policy requiring employees to maintain their primary residence in Wyandotte County. In July 2019, anonymous employees complained to BPU that Owens was violating the residency policy. BPU investigated the complaint, and on September 11, 2020, informed Owens that they were unable to substantiate or disprove his residency and no disciplinary action would be taken.
Owens claimed the investigation’s length and intensity was discriminatory based on his race. He filed a workplace discrimination complaint with BPU and later filed a charge with the EEOC. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Owens filed a Title VII lawsuit in the District of Kansas.
Legal Analysis
Motion for Mistrial and Motion for a New Trial
During the four-day jury trial, Owens’ lead counsel, Bert Braud, contracted COVID-19 midway through the trial and participated remotely for the remainder of the proceedings. Owens’ second-chair counsel, Cooper Mach, took over the in-person representation. Owens moved for a mistrial, arguing that proceeding without lead counsel would prejudice his case. The district court denied the motion, finding that a mistrial was not warranted because Owens had two attorneys, Mach was performing well, there were only a few witnesses left, and Braud could consult with Mach remotely.
After the jury found the defendant not liable on all counts, Owens moved for a new trial, alleging that Braud’s absence prejudiced his case. The district court rejected these arguments and concluded that Braud’s absence did not prejudice Owens. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Owens’ motions, holding that Owens failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudicial trial error due to Braud’s absence. The court distinguished the case from Smith-Weik Mach. Corp v. Murdock Mach. & Eng’g Co., 423 F.2d 842 (5th Cir. 1970), which Owens relied on, noting that Mach had access to case materials, was based in the forum state, and had already completed half of the trial with Braud before his illness.
The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Owens’ motion for a mistrial and motion for a new trial, as Owens failed to demonstrate that proceeding without Braud’s physical presence in the courtroom had a prejudicial impact on his right to a fair trial.
Schrag on Law 