Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-1579 Tinner v. United Insurance Company of America

By: dmc-admin//October 14, 2002//

01-1579 Tinner v. United Insurance Company of America

By: dmc-admin//October 14, 2002//

Listen to this article

“While Mrs. Clardy was neither the plaintiff nor the victim of discrimination in her sister’s lawsuit, her relationship to and knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be discounted. Mrs. Clardy stated in voir dire that she ‘did not go through the courts’ with her sister. Being present throughout the litigation, however, would not be necessary to taint her view of discrimination litigation.

“This line of reasoning is further supported by United’s second reason for striking Mrs. Clardy, because she categorized her sister’s experience as an ‘ordeal.’ Again, United’s second reason is facially neutral. The term ‘ordeal’ clearly carries a negative connotation and suggests that Mrs. Clardy, quite naturally, felt sympathetic towards her sister’s situation. No one would fault Mrs. Clardy for expressing such sympathy towards a family member, but it is precisely such sympathy that United sought to exclude from the jury. There is nothing facially invalid in United’s desire to exclude someone whose close relative went through the ‘ordeal’ of a discrimination lawsuit. The district court did not commit clear error in finding that United’s proffered reasons were race-neutral.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Bauer, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests