Melanie Pitrolo v. County of Buncombe, NC, No. 09-2051 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2051 MELANIE PITROLO, Plaintiff Appellant, v. COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NC; BRITT LOVIN; DEAN KAHL; LOYD KIRK; VONNA CLONINGER; WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL AIR QUALITY AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS; WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL AIR QUALITY AGENCY, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00199-MR-DLH) Submitted: November 24, 2010 Decided: January 11, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished opinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Wilkinson joined. Michael G. Wimer, WIMER & JOBE, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas J. Doughton, Amy L. Rich, DOUGHTON & HART, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. SHEDD, Circuit Judge: Melanie Pitrolo filed this action under Title VII claiming that the County of Buncombe, the Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, the Agency Board of Directors, Britt Lovin, Dean Kahl, Buncombe Loyd Kirk, Vonna failed County ) and Cloninger to promote her Interim Director because of her gender. to (collectively the position of After a jury decided in Pitrolo s favor, the district court granted Buncombe County s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and entered an amended judgment in favor of Buncombe County Pitrolo to pay Buncombe County s costs. For the following reasons, we vacate and ordering Pitrolo now appeals. the district court s amended judgment, reinstate the jury verdict, and remand the case. I. This is Pitrolo s second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, we vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of Buncombe County on Pitrolo s Title VII gender discrimination claim and remanded that claim for further proceedings. Pitrolo v. County of Buncombe, No. 07-2145, 2009 WL 1010634 (4th Cir. Mar. 11, 2009). testified that, In the summary judgment record, shortly after an Agency Board Pitrolo had of Directors meeting regarding the Interim Director position, Agency Director Bob Camby reported to her that 2 there was opposition to her becoming the future leader of the Agency because of her age and gender. admissible We held evidence that as Camby s a statement party-opponent Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). to Pitrolo admission was under Importantly, we found the statement constitutes direct evidence of gender discrimination sufficient to defeat summary judgment. On remand, a jury found that gender was a motivating factor in Buncombe County s decision not to promote Pitrolo but also found that Buncombe County would have denied her the promotion in the absence of consideration of her gender. jury did not award Pitrolo damages. Pitrolo s post-trial motion for Accordingly, the The district court denied declaratory relief, attorney fees and costs, and granted Buncombe County s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. * The district court entered an amended judgment dismissing Pitrolo s action with prejudice and ordering that Buncombe County recover costs from Pitrolo. * Buncombe County moved for judgment as a matter of law at the end of the trial, arguing that Camby s statement was not sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in favor of Pitrolo. In denying that motion, the district court stated: [Y]ou re fully aware . . . two judges previously were of the opinion that that was not an adequate basis to keep the case alive, but three judges disagreed, so I m going to keep it alive for them to review again if the jury verdict is adverse to the position of the plaintiff in this case and give them an opportunity to review it. So I m going to let the jury decide that tomorrow, and we ll all see at that time what they come up with. J.A. 544. 3 II. We review de novo a district court's ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). Importantly, a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law follows the same standard as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. 644. Id. at Thus, when a jury has returned a verdict, the district court may grant a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law only if, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (and in support of the jury's verdict) and drawing every legitimate inference in that party's favor, the only conclusion a reasonable jury could have reached is one in favor of the moving party. Int l Ground Transp., v. Mayor & City 475 Council 2007). jury s of Ocean City, F.3d 214, 218-19 (4th Cir. If reasonable minds could differ, we must affirm the verdict. Dennis, 290 F.3d at 645. In drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, a court may not weigh the witnesses. evidence or assess the credibility of the Id. We find that Camby s statement is sufficient evidence to support Camby s the jury s statement verdict. The constitutes law direct of this case evidence of discrimination sufficient to defeat summary judgment. a minimum, the jury could reasonably 4 conclude from is that gender Thus, at Camby s statement that Pitrolo s Buncombe County s district court may gender decision not differ with was to the a hire motivating her. jury s factor Although conclusions, in the Rule 50(b) does not permit the court to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses - to do so is to usurp the fact-finding role of the jury. Therefore, the district court erred had in finding that Pitrolo not presented sufficient evidence to support the jury s finding and that a reasonable jury could not have inferred from Camby s statement that gender was a motivating factor in Buncombe County s decision not to promote Pitrolo. We note that the district court denied Pitrolo s post-trial motion for attorney fees and costs because, under the amended judgment, she did not prevail on her mixed-motive claim. However, with the reinstatement of the jury s verdict, Pitrolo is now the prevailing party. See Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., 354 F.3d 277, 284 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 543 U.S. 1132 (2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(m)). As such, she is entitled to seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable to her mixed-motive claim. 5 Id. III. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court s amended judgment and order granting Buncombe County s motion for judgment as a matter of law, ordering that Buncombe County recover costs from Pitrolo, and denying Pitrolo s motion for declaratory relief, attorney fees and costs. We reinstate the jury verdict and judgment in favor of Pitrolo, and we remand the matter for reconsideration of Pitrolo s post-trial motion for declaratory relief and attorney fees and costs in light of our holding. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.