Notwithstanding that there seems to have been discrimination and the fact civil rights laws are nowhere near as strong as they should be (thanks BURGER COURT!!!!):
The four-page verdict did not state what those reasons were, and the judge did not explain why he believed he found the hospital's stated rationale persuasive enough to overturn a six-person jury's findings following a weeklong trial.
This is a pretty bad paragraph that states things that aren't true and implies things that directed verdicts and JMOLs don't require (he doesn't need to find they were more persuasive, they don't weigh the weight of the evidence. they just look if there was evidence a jury could use).
But as for this case the judge does articulate and cites cases that specifically state that under Florida law (lol) aren't valid evidentiary facts (disagree with his holding, but he does cite things). Specifically, he states that the doctor claims Aventist was liable for these actions and statements of its employees isn't supported by evidence allowed by the law (it's not an evidentiary ruling though, btw the law uses confusing terms on purpose)
According to the law this judge has to find he's by "direct" evidence that race was the motivating factor in his firing
The standard the judge uses here for direct is:
"evidence, which if believed, proves existence of fact in issue without inference or presumption. Evidence that only suggests discrimination, [citations] does not constitute direct evidence. "
Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1190.
additionally, the judge cites the fact that juries can't stack inferences (I'm not sure this is actually a good argument by the judge since I don't think this quote supports what he's claiming since the case (below) that he cites isn't about discrimination and the Merritt case (above) IS and DID find discrimination).
"A jury may not stack inferences to determine that a party had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, nor is the mere possibility of causation sufficient to establish liability."
Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Bellaiche, 245 So. 3d 873, 876.
He doesn't state that the defendant's (hospital) reasons were "better" he just states they offered them and his evidence wasn't, by law, able to be used by the jury in the way that it was.
I would need to dig into Florida Civil rights law to really know more but basically, the judge is saying that he didn't provide the elements of the action he was claiming, so thusly, no jury (without violating the law) could have reasonably found they way they did (juries can only base decisions on facts in certain ways).
Its a poorly written opinion and I have no idea on the merits as I don't know Florida law.
tl;dr: judges determine the law, juries find facts. the law states you have to offer evidence for your claim otherwise judges, by law should direct a verdict contrary to you because there are no facts that a jury could use to support you're claim. that's what the judge says happens here.
I think on appeal he should raise the question of what "direct evidence" is because this judge is very confusing (I don't personally think the case is super strong, its a jury question, not a matter of law...)
His name is literally "White" in German.
He's Jewish
Edit: I want to highlight this disn't to say the judge was right or didn't have ulterior motives (see below). This primarily was written because I've spend 7 hours today doing bar prep on these very subjects (civil procedure) and this post was for my own edification and trying to explain how JMOL/directed verdicts work. I don't want to downplay how people use the law, even "correctly" to perpetuate discrimination. just saw a bunch of "THEY CAN IGNORE THE JURY" and tried to explain how and what the judge was doing (which looking at the totality seems really fucked up)
lawandcrime.com
