The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
B. Rule 50 Practice:
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
1. The Rule
- Rule 50(a) provides for a motion for judgment as a matter
of law (JMOL) which may be made at any time before submission
of the case to the jury. This was previously known as a motion
for a directed verdict. It allows the trial court to determine
whether there is any question of fact to go to the jury and
whether any finding other than the one requested would be
erroneous as a matter of law.
- Rule 50(b) allows the court to reserve decision on the
question of law until after the case has been submitted to the
jury and it has reached a verdict or is unable to agree. If the
court decides the initial motion should have been granted, it
may set aside the verdict of the jury and enter judgment as a
matter of law. This was previously known as judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. Rule 50(b) also allows a motion
for a new trial under Rule 59 to be joined in the alternative
with a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- The 1993 amendment to Rule 50 makes clear that JMOL may be
entered against both plaintiffs and defendants and with respect
to issues or defenses that may not be wholly dispositive of an
entire claim or defense.
- If the party with the burden of proof has established the
elements of its case by testimony that the jury is not at
liberty to disbelieve, JMOL in that party’s favor may be
granted on motion. However, entering JMOL for the party bearing
the burden of proof on an issue is generally viewed as an
extreme step, to be taken only “when the evidence
favoring the claimant is so one-sided as to be of overwhelming
effect.” EEOC v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth,
Inc., 117 F.3d 1244, 1250 (11th Cir. 1997);
see Grey v. First Nat’l Bank in
Dallas, 393 F.2d 371 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 961 (1968);
9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure,
§ 2535, at 325-29 (1995).
2. Standard of Sufficiency
- The question of whether the evidence is sufficient to
create an issue of fact is a question of law and is the same
regardless of whether the motion is being considered before or
after submission to the jury.
- The standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence
is the same as the standard for reviewing a motion for summary
judgment as well. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 250-51 (1986). But even where a court has denied a motion
for summary judgment it can still enter judgment as a matter of
law.
- The court may not weigh the evidence, pass on the
credibility of witnesses, or substitute its judgment of the
facts for that of the jury. It must view the evidence most
favorably to the party against whom the motion is made and give
that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be
drawn from the evidence.
- The court must review all of the evidence in the record,
not just the evidence favorable to the nonmoving party,
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133,
149-51 (2000); however, “it must disregard all evidence
favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to
believe.” Id. at 151.
- Thus, “the court should give credence to the evidence
favoring the nonmovant as well as that ‘evidence
supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and
unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes
from disinterested witnesses.’” Id.
(quoting 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2529, at 300 (2d ed. 1995)).
- The analysis is the same in the trial court and on
appeal.
This page was last modified on May 18, 2005.
Return to Home Page