Dennis McLain v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11667
____________________
DENNIS MCLAIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-01283-WFJ-CPT
____________________
Before WILSON , G RANT, and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-11667 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11667
PER CURIAM:
Dennis McLain appeals from a jury verdict for the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs and against McLain on his claims of retaliation
and hostile work environment under Title VII. McLain claimed he
was retaliated against and subjected to a hostile work environment
by the VA hospital where he worked as a nurse because he engaged
in protected activity as a representative of the nurse’s union.
After a trial, the jury found for the Secretary on both counts.
On a special verdict form, the jury found that McLain was not
“treated differently[] because of his protected EEO activity and pro-
tected activity played [no] part in the way one or more personnel
actions were made.” Likewise, the jury found that the Secretary did
not “harass [McLain] because of his protected EEO activity.”
On appeal, McLain raises three arguments. First, he argues
that the district court’s jury instructions misstated the law of cau-
sation under Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020) and Babb v. Secre-
tary, 992 F.3d 1193 (2021). Specifically, he argues that the district
court’s instructions erroneously placed the burden on him to estab-
lish more than the mere presence of discriminatory considerations
in his employer’s decision-making process. Second, he argues the
district court erred in its hostile work environment instruction.
Third, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in al-
lowing the Secretary to admit certain evidence for the jury’s con-
sideration.
We will not disturb a jury’s verdict for an instructional or
evidentiary error unless it affected the outcome of the proceedings.
USCA11 Case: 22-11667 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-11667 Opinion of the Court 3
See Watkins v. City of Montgomery, Ala., 775 F.3d 1280, 1289-90 (11th
Cir. 2014); Burchfield v. CSH Transp., Inc., 636 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th
Cir. 2011). After careful consideration of the record and the parties’
briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no prejudicial
error in the district court’s jury instructions or evidentiary rul-
ings. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11667 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --