Judge Barrington D. Parker
Shaiman was Raedle’s supervisor at Credit Agricole Indosuez (CAI), which fired Raedle in 2001 for poor performance. Raedle secured a job offer from Thunelius at the Dreyfus Corp. Dreyfus rescinded the offer after contacting CAI and investigating Raedle’s performance. District court granted Raedle a new trial after a defense verdict on a claim against CAI for tortiously interfering with the Dreyfus job offer. Trial hinged on Thunelius’s credibility. He testified that Dreyfus’ human resources manager told him Raedle’s former supervisors said he had “mental issues”—suggesting a personality disorder or mental health-related impairment. The second trial resulted in a verdict in Raedle’s favor. On cross appeals, the circuit ordered the first verdict’s reinstatement. District court abused its discretion in granting a second trial. Where a verdict is based almost entirely on the jury’s assessment of credibility, such verdict generally should not be disturbed, except to correct an seriously erroneous result, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In returning a defense verdict, the first trial’s jury did not credit Thunelius’ testimony. On the record, its verdict could not be said to have been either egregious or a serious miscarriage of justice.
