MacArthur v. University of Texas Health Center at Tyler

Citation. 45 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 1995)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation45 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 1995)

Brief Fact Summary.

MacArthur asserted five claims against Defendants, three of which were presented to the jury. She prevailed on one of the claims. The district court dismissed all but the claim on which she prevailed. After her motion for a new trial was denied, MacArthur filed a notice of appeal challenging the dismissal of her claims.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A claim that is abandoned by a party’s failure to argue or present it to the jury, so that it is not embodied in the lower court’s judgment, is not properly before a court on appeal; claims that were presented to the jury and are embodied in a lower court’s final judgment, but not briefed and argued on appeal, are abandoned on appeal.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress that the plaintiff suffered was severe.

View Full Point of Law

MacArthur asserted five claims against Defendants–retaliation under the First Amendment, sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of Equal Protection Clause, and retaliation under Title VII.  Three of the claims were presented to the jury; MacArthur prevailed on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The district court dismissed all but the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, pursuant to the verdict returned by the jury. MacArthur filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. She filed a notice of appeal challenging the dismissal of her claims.

Issue.

Was  dismissal of MacArthur’s claims appropriate?

Held.

Yes, MacArthur abandoned the claims that were presented to the jury on her appeal, and the claim she pressed on appeal was abandoned at the district court level and not embodied in its verdict, so not properly before the court on appeal.

Discussion.

MacArthur raised one claim on appeal — Title VII retaliation, which was abandoned at the district court and not embodied in the district court’s judgment and, consequently, not before the court on appeal. MacArthur also abandoned the claims that were embodied in the district court judgment because she failed to brief and argue them.