Akesha SINGLETON; Kawanta Singleton, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. RPM PIZZA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 182 F. App'x 292

PER CURIAM: Appellants challenge the take nothing judgment rendered against them based upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants. Appellants raise a number of issues in this appeal none of which have merit: 1. The district court did not err in its jury instruction concerning adverse employment action. In any event, any deficiency in this respect was clearly harmless under the evidence. 2. The district court did not err in allowing the defendant to present an affirmative defense based on Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998), and Faragher v.

City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). In any event, the presentation of this defense was irrelevant to the judgment because the jury did not reach this issue and the jury’s verdict was not predicated on it. 3. The district court did not err in not requiring the jury to make a separate determination on plaintiffs’ claim predicated on constructive discharge independent of their hostile work environment claim. The jury’s finding of no hostile work environment necessarily precluded plaintiffs’ claims of constructive discharge. 4.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting defendant’s race-neutral explanations for their peremptory challenges of African-American jurors. 5. Plaintiffs’ argument on appeal that a juror was biased before trial was not preserved by proper objection in the trial court and is waived. In any event, no evidence of juror bias was produced. 6. The district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding plaintiffs from using a 20-year-old conviction to impeach a witness. 7. Finally, the evidence was ample to support the jury verdict. The district court judgment is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.