Narrative Opinion Summary
In a discrimination lawsuit under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, the appellant challenged a jury instruction regarding the employer's duty to reasonably accommodate disabilities. The appellant argued that her objection was not properly recorded by the trial court, thus preserving her claim. However, the court found that her off-the-record objection lacked the specificity necessary to preserve the issue for appeal, and her counsel failed to reiterate the objection on the record when given the opportunity. Citing Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court affirmed that the appellant had waived her objection by not adequately addressing it before jury deliberations. Furthermore, the court emphasized the appellant's missed opportunity to rectify any perceived errors during the proceedings. The decision, while affirmed, is not published and is subject to citation restrictions within the circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Non-Publication and Citation Limits of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that its decision is not suitable for publication and has restrictions on citation within the circuit, in accordance with specific rules.
Reasoning: The court affirms the decision, noting the disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under specific rules.
Opportunity to Address Errors During Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court highlighted that the appellant had a bona fide opportunity to address any alleged jury instruction errors during the trial proceedings, which she failed to utilize effectively.
Reasoning: The court emphasizes that Fitz had a bona fide opportunity to address any errors during the proceedings but failed to do so.
Specificity of Objectionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the appellant's off-the-record objections insufficiently specific to preserve an issue for appeal, emphasizing the need for objections to clearly articulate any alleged errors to alert the court.
Reasoning: However, the court finds that Fitz's off-the-record objection was insufficiently specific. The district court gave Fitz an opportunity to object to the finalized jury instructions on the record, during which her counsel did not renew the objection, stating only that the instruction had been 'scratched.'
Waiver of Objections to Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to determine that the appellant waived her objection to the jury instructions by failing to adequately object on the record before jury deliberations.
Reasoning: The court affirms the waiver, citing Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a party to object to jury instructions before deliberations, specifying the grounds for the objection.