Davis v. Fisk Electric Co.
268 S.W.3d 508, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1420, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 863 (2008)
Rule of Law:
A peremptory strike in a civil case is unconstitutional if race is a motivating factor, and a trial court abuses its discretion by failing to sustain a Batson challenge when, considering the totality of the circumstances, race-neutral explanations for strikes are found to be pretextual, especially when comparative juror analysis reveals disparate treatment or when nonverbal cues are not sufficiently specific and verified.
Facts:
- Donald Davis, an African American, worked for Fisk Electric Company as an assistant project manager.
- In February 2001, Fisk Electric Company was awarded the contract to install cables at Goodson Middle School.
- After problems arose on the Goodson project, Fisk Electric Company terminated Davis.
- Davis alleged that his termination was based on his race, citing his supervisor’s alleged use of a racial slur (the 'n-word') when planning his termination.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Davis sued Fisk Electric Company, Fisk Technologies, and Fisk Management Inc. (collectively, "Fisk") in a Texas trial court, claiming violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Texas Labor Code.
- At the conclusion of voir dire, Fisk peremptorily struck six venire members, five of whom were African American.
- Davis objected, citing Batson v. Kentucky, arguing the strikes were improperly based on race.
- The trial court, after a hearing, overruled Davis's Batson objection, even though it did not allow Davis's counsel to fully rebut Fisk's explanations before ruling.
- The jury returned a defense verdict, and the trial court signed a take-nothing judgment.
- Davis appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the judgment.
- Davis, as appellant, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas (highest court), which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by overruling a civil plaintiff's Batson challenge when the defendant's peremptory strikes disproportionately excluded African American jurors, and the proffered race-neutral explanations for striking specific jurors are unsupported by the record, pretextual, or apply equally to non-struck non-minority jurors?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Jefferson
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by overruling a civil plaintiff's Batson challenge when the defendant's peremptory strikes disproportionately excluded African American jurors, and the proffered race-neutral explanations for striking specific jurors are unsupported by the record, pretextual, or apply equally to non-struck non-minority jurors. The Court, drawing on guidance from Miller-El v. Dretke (Miller-El II) and Snyder v. Louisiana, emphasized a "totality of the circumstances" analysis. The Court found a "remarkable" statistical disparity where Fisk struck 83% of eligible African American venire members but only 5.5% of nonblack prospective jurors. Through comparative juror analysis, the Court concluded Fisk's stated reasons for striking Juror No. 12, Patrick Daigle (African American), were pretextual. Fisk claimed Daigle non-verbally "reacted" to punitive damages, but the record showed no verbal response, Fisk failed to question him about it, and a white juror (Vinzant) who verbally expressed similar views on punitive damages was not struck. Fisk's other reason for Daigle, that he seemed too eager to believe his employer discriminated, was unsupported by the record. The Court held that merely stating a juror "reacted" non-verbally is insufficient without identifying the conduct with specificity and having record support or verification. Similarly, Fisk's reasons for striking Juror No. 5, Michael Pickett (African American), were deemed pretextual. Fisk cited Pickett's profession as a musician and his "strong reaction" to the "n-word." The Court found Pickett's job situation was not less desirable than other non-struck jurors with employment issues. His reaction to the "n-word" was found to be no stronger than that of nonblack jurors (Stehling, Reynaga, Vinzant) who were not struck and served on the jury, indicating disparate treatment. The Court also rejected Fisk's attempt to justify the strike on appeal with a reason (Pickett's prior discrimination experience) not advanced during the Batson hearing. The Court concluded that race explained Fisk's strikes of Daigle and Pickett better than any other reason.
Concurring - Justice Brister
Justice Brister concurred in the judgment of remanding for a new trial but disagreed with the majority's conclusion that defense counsel's peremptory strikes were racially motivated. He argued that neutral reasons for the strikes were given but were not properly preserved, partly because the rules governing Batson challenges, particularly concerning nonverbal conduct, changed with Snyder v. Louisiana after the trial. He contended that the majority overly scrutinized Fisk's counsel's motives, when the issue was more about a failure to preserve explanations rather than intentional discrimination. Justice Brister criticized the majority's new requirements for strikes based on nonverbal conduct—demanding specific identification and questioning of the juror—as impractical and not mandated by Supreme Court precedent like Rice v. Collins. He used the opportunity to advocate for discontinuing peremptory strikes entirely, highlighting their historical obsolescence, the potential for accusations of discrimination, and the disproportionately high number of Batson challenges in Texas.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and strengthens the Batson framework in Texas civil courts, aligning state jurisprudence with federal guidance from Miller-El II and Snyder. It reinforces that appellate courts must conduct a searching inquiry into the totality of the circumstances, including rigorous comparative juror analysis. The ruling establishes a higher bar for justifying peremptory strikes based on nonverbal conduct, demanding specific identification of the conduct and record verification, thereby curtailing the opportunity for vague, pretextual explanations. This makes it more challenging for litigants to mask discriminatory intent in jury selection and increases the likelihood of a new trial if a Batson challenge is successfully demonstrated through compelling evidence of pretext or disparate treatment.
