Nichols v. City of Canton MS
Nichols v. City of Canton MS
Opinion
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
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.