Greenlee v. Godlan Incorporated , 78 F. App'x 299 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    LYNDA GREENLEE,                          
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 03-1398
    GODLAN, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-02-667-6-20)
    Submitted: September 26, 2003
    Decided: October 22, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Steven M. Wynkoop, Amy Keegan, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY &
    SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Melvin Hutson, Lynn R. Hudson, MELVIN HUTSON, P.A., Green-
    ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                     GREENLEE v. GODLAN, INC.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Godlan, Inc., appeals from the district court’s denials of its timely
    motions made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and 59, in a civil mat-
    ter filed by its former employee, Lynda Greenlee, who claimed that
    Godlan tortiously interfered with her at-will employment with Saint-
    Gobain, her new employer. On appeal, Godlan challenges the suffi-
    ciency of the evidence in the proof of Greenlee’s claim, and further
    claims error in the damage award. For the reasons set forth below, we
    affirm the district court’s orders.
    This Court reviews the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judgment as
    a matter of law de novo. Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 
    335 F.3d 325
    , 331 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The court must determine whether
    substantial evidence exists, viewing the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the non-movant, upon which the jury could find for the
    appellee. Price v. City of Charlotte, 
    93 F.3d 1241
    , 1249 (4th Cir.
    1996). We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of
    discretion. Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 
    144 F.3d 294
    , 301 (4th Cir.
    1998); Atlas Food Sys. & Serv., Inc. v. Crane Nat’l Vendors, Inc., 
    99 F.3d 587
    , 599 (4th Cir. 1996).
    Greenlee introduced evidence in this case demonstrating that
    Godlan asserted to Greenlee and to Saint-Gobain that Greenlee had
    a valid non-compete agreement that Godlan intended to enforce, and
    thereafter faxed to Saint-Gobain an acknowledgment page signed by
    Greenlee to a non-compete agreement from a superseded manual
    knowing it had been superseded and was invalid.* Greenlee also
    introduced evidence that the same afternoon Saint-Gobain received
    the fax, it suspended Greenlee and then terminated her because she
    failed to disclose the no longer valid non-compete agreement. We
    *The jury’s apparent rejection of Godlan’s attempts to justify its
    actions by claiming that Greenlee did not sign the acknowledgment form
    to the superseded manual which contained no non-compete agreement,
    is not unreasonable given that Godlan was obviously aware that its sec-
    ond employee manual did not contain a non-compete agreement, and that
    the second manual superseded the first.
    GREENLEE v. GODLAN, INC.                        3
    find Greenlee introduced sufficient evidence to prove the essential
    elements of her claim of tortious interference with contract under
    South Caroline law. Cooper v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings,
    Inc., 
    150 F.3d 376
    , 382 (4th Cir. 1998); Threlkeld v. Christoph, 
    312 S.E.2d 14
    , 16 (S.C. App. 1984).
    We find no merit to Godlan’s challenge to the district court’s
    refusal to reduce the $200,000 damage award to nominal damages, or,
    at most, to $143,420, relying on the facts that Greenlee’s employment
    with Saint-Gobain was at-will, and alleging there was no evidence
    that Greenlee would have been given a monetary bonus from Saint-
    Gobain. The district court properly determined that there was ample
    evidence introduced at trial to support the award of future damages,
    such that the award was not speculative, and the jury was appropri-
    ately instructed that Greenlee’s employment was at-will, and that any
    damage award could not be based upon speculation or conjecture. See
    Small v. Spring Indus., 
    388 S.E.2d 808
    , 812 (S.C. 1990). The district
    court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the verdict was
    not against the clear weight of the evidence, there is no indication in
    the record that the evidence upon which the verdict was based was
    false, and the verdict will not result in a miscarriage of justice. Atlas
    Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat’l Vendors, Inc., 
    99 F.3d 587
    ,
    594 (4th Cir. 1996).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decisions denying
    Godlan’s motions pursuant to Rules 50(b) and 59. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED