Kenite Webb v. City of Venice, Florida

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12878
____________________
KENITE WEBB,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA,
Defendant-Appellant,
CITY OF VENICE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendant.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12878 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12878
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-03045-TPB-TGW
____________________
Before JORDAN , L AGOA, and H ULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Kenite Webb brought hostile work environment
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)
and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”) against the City
of Venice (“the City”). After a 5-day jury trial, the jury returned a
$50,000 verdict in favor of Webb. The City filed a motion for
judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial,
which the district court denied. On appeal, the City challenges,
inter alia, the sufficiency and weight of Webb’s evidence, the
district court’s various evidentiary rulings, and the district court’s
resubmission of the case to the jury after an inconsistent verdict.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for
judgment as a matter of law. Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d
1160, 1173 (11th Cir. 2010).1 While we review all of the record
1 We review the district court’s decision on the City’s motion for a new trial
for abuse of discretion. Jenkins v. Anton, 922 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2019).
We review the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Cook ex rel. Est. of
Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., 402 F.3d 1092, 1103 (11th Cir. 2005). We
review the district court’s response to the inconsistent verdict for abuse of
discretion. Wilbur v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 393 F.3d 1192, 1199 (11th Cir. 2004).
USCA11 Case: 22-12878 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-12878 Opinion of the Court 3
evidence, we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party, and may not make credibility determinations or
weigh the evidence. Id. “We will not second-guess the jury or
substitute our judgment for its judgment if its verdict is supported
by sufficient evidence.” EEOC v. Exel, Inc., 884 F.3d 1326, 1329 (11th
Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted).
Under Title VII, Webb was required to prove, inter alia, the
harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms
and conditions of his employment and create a discriminatorily
abusive working environment. Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc.,
277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002). This requires satisfaction of
both subjective and objective components. Mendoza v. Borden, Inc.,
195 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Specifically, “[t]he
employee must ‘subjectively perceive’ the harassment as
sufficiently severe and pervasive[,] . . . and this subjective
perception must be objectively reasonable.” Id. This inquiry
demands consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Id. We
examine the conduct in its context, “not as isolated acts.” Id.
Discrimination claims under the FCRA are governed by the same
standards as Title VII claims and do not require separate analysis.
Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Devs., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010).
After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument,
we find no reversible error in the trial or the district court’s rulings,
and thus affirm the jury’s verdict and the denial of the City’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12878 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --