ATTACHMENT 8 A
1
1
1
1
A 1
1
1
i
1
Case 1 :04-cv—OO583-GIVIS Document 145-9 Filed O4/26/2006 Page 2 of 3 A
FOCUS - l8 of 342 DOCUMENTS
CORINTHIAN T. CUFFEE, Appellant v. DOVER WIPES COMPANY, an
Ohio Corporation; PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., an Ohio Corporation 1
no. 05-2457 °
1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
163 Fed. Appx. 107; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 452
I
January 4, 2006, Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 9, 2006, Filed ’
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE THIRD tion. After the District Court granted
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT summary judgment on several claims in
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. favor of the appellees, a trial was
PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE held on his claims under the Equal Pay K
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR Act (EPA), Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. Q 1
THIS CIRCUIT. 1981. The jury found in favor of the
appellees on all claims. Cuffee filed
PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal From the motions [*109] for a new trial which 1
United States District Court For the the District Court [**2] denied. Cuf- 1
District of Delaware. (D.C. Civ. No. fee filed a timely notice of appeal, 1
O3-cv-00276) . District Judge: Honor- and we have jurisdiction under 28 1
able Sue L. Robinson. Cuffee v. Dover U.S.C'. § 1291.
p;;p€;E§O"A;gO527U’i'001;§St' LEXIS 7300 On appeal, Cuffee argues that the
` " ` ’ District Court allowed the appellees 1
to exercise a peremptory challenge 1
based on race in violation of Batson
j;’;;'f"E;;OC;§fN;§f@§n'TbEfâ€FFEE· Appel` V. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1
1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986). He fur-
FOI DOVER WIPES CO, an Ohio CGfPOx_a_ ther contends that the District Court
Ei-¤¤· 1;1$¤¤TE; & l
lOughby' Mlchaél P' Stafford' Young' tal fairness requires that he been 1
Ccnaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilming— , , , _ 1
tcm, DE' given a new trial. because his attor
neys were ineffective. 1
JUDGES: Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND We review the District Court's
NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. finding that there was no intentional 1
. discrimination in the exercise of per- 1
OPINION: [*108] PER CURIAM emptory challenges for clear error. 1
Corinthian Cuffee appeals the Dis- iyggrecii V`2;;0;€O1tB§§;5gé 1
trict Court's order denying his mo- '. . ` 1
tions for a new trial. Cuffee filed a COuf1?'§·{ilndlng depends largely On the
Complaint in the District Cmnt for credibility and demeanor of the attor- 1
, , , ney exercising the peremptory strike,
the District of Delaware alleging sev- . . . . .
_ , , , the finding is entitled to consider-
eral claims of employment discrimina-
s
1
2
z
Case 1 :04-cv—OO583-GIVIS Document 145-9 Filed O4/26/2006 Page 3 of 3
Page 2
163 Fed. Appx. 107, *; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 462, **
able deference. It will not be over- Cuffee had not carried his burden to
turned unless "it is completely devoid show a violation of Batson.
giaylgglglglgge ;;;d‘;IiftlC&f;lgi;g§§s;t dls-1 The District Court's admission of
. . ’ .‘ ' ` ‘d ‘ ‘ a E b 12 1
or bears m rational relationship to gggcjggjcljs 1f;;j*;;‘* uf Fajdaaiszj 1
the Suppmrtive evidence", Id at 350` The admission of the evidence of a
[**3] (citation omitted). Appellees' , . . . . P
Counsel explained that he Struck the pellees job classification system was
juror at issue because "he's a factory not an abuse Of dlscretlcm The EVP
worker and in this case I don’t think dence was relevant to appellees. d€—
that.?) the kind Of jmmr that I want fense and was not unfairly prejudicial
So I did this before he even got here, 1 to Cflffeg AS ja-X Cuffeels dlssatlsw
before he was Even Selected I didnlt faction with his attorneys' perform~
know what his face was ' H Tx ance, the District Court did not abuse
10/12/04 at 29 Appellee; °uSéd`>th€i];_ its discretion in denying Cuffee a new
thm Strikes 011 jmiss with ¤·=<=¤¤¤· EE?} 1E`L*f§at.°%¤“ESE hiZ2“Zd£’§§€“$E
tional backgrounds similar to Cuffee. . ,
. . effective counsel. See Kushner v. Win-
The District Court was able to observe tefthur Swiss I S C0 620 F 2d 404
the demeanor of the appellees' coun— 408 (Bd Cir 19510; " ' ’
. sel, and there is evidence to support ' ` 1
its finding that the appellees did not For the above reasons, as well as 1
exercise a perempto challenge based those set forth by the District Court, 1
xy 1
on race. The District Court did not we will affirm the District Court’s
commit clear error in finding that judgment. 1
1
1
- ’ 1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS
Document 145-9
Filed 04/26/2006
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS
Document 145-9
Filed 04/26/2006
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS
Document 145-9
Filed 04/26/2006
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms