Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Before
Torruella, Lipez, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
LIPEZ,
Circuit
Judge.
Joseph
Angiuoni,
military
We affirm.
I.
We recite the facts as the jury could have found them.
See Sinai v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 3 F.3d 471, 472 (1st Cir.
1993).
- 2 -
Angiuoni's
FTOs
observed
and
reported
on
numerous
When
Angiuoni told Moran that he planned to search the car for drugs
because he thought he had smelled something, Moran said he did not
smell anything and told Angiuoni not to search the car.
Angiuoni
When
the
male
was
her
boyfriend.
Despite
Moran's
contrary
- 3 -
Angiuoni
similarly
involved
Angiuoni's
ignoring
knew what things were like and that people were out to get him.
In May 2009, Angiuoni took handgun and rifle tests.
He
passed the handgun test, but did not qualify on the rifle test.
He was the only officer who failed the rifle test that day and the
only officer in that training cycle who did not qualify.
When Angiuoni's probationary period ended, Lieutenant
Opland, who oversees operation of the Field Training Program, did
not clear Angiuoni for patrol.
reported
concerns
about
Angiuoni's
progress,
demeanor,
and
- 4 -
them.
the
Department
regarding
layoffs
due
to
budgetary
cuts.
Angiuoni told Officer Moran that the FTOs were out to get him
because of the possible layoffs.
- 5 -
No layoffs occurred.
In one instance
He blamed
for
radar.
On
another
occasion,
an
administrative
- 6 -
about his FTOs and stated, in particular, that Officer Moran had
said that veterans should not get special treatment.
In a written report presented to the Town Manager, Chief
Rosa outlined areas of concern regarding Angiuoni's performance,
including:
lack
of
self-initiative
on
patrol;
poor
radio
The
for
his
own
actions
or
take
any
constructive
criticism during his training phase," and that he did not make
adequate progress during the extended probationary period despite
being informed of his issues in June.
to
exclude
evidence
of
the
number
of
veterans
in
the
- 7 -
The jury
not
shown
that
his
veteran
status
was
substantial
or
The
- 8 -
II.
USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating on the
basis of military service.
4311,
states,
inter
that
person
who
"has
Id. 4311(a).
An employee making a
Valzquez-Garca v. Horizon
Lines of P.R., 473 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2007); see also Sheehan
v. Dep't of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Such
evidence,
which
includes,
among
others,
Sheehan,
- 9 -
at
at
17
(quoting
Sheehan,
240
F.3d
1014);
see
38
U.S.C.
4311(c)(1).
With
this
background
in
mind,
we
address
each
of
Specifically, the
In
Angiuoni's
counsel said it would show that Angiuoni's failure on the May 2009
rifle test was likely attributable to a faulty rifle.
Defense
counsel argued that the issue at trial was whether Angiuoni failed
the rifle test during his employment.
his
The
termination
were
irrelevant.
court
sustained
the
objection.
The parties dispute whether Angiuoni waived this claim
of error by failing to make an offer of proof or mark the exhibit
for identification in the trial proceedings.
hence
because
do
not
--
address
the
waiver
issue
we
reject
- 10 -
556 F.3d 53, 68 n.6 (1st Cir. 2009) ("[B]ecause we easily reject
petitioner's claim on the merits, we need not resolve this dispute
[regarding waiver].").
We afford trial courts "a wide berth in respect to
regulating the scope of rebuttal testimony."
United States v.
Sebaggala, 256 F.3d 59, 66 (1st Cir. 2001); see also Geders v.
United States, 425 U.S. 80, 86-87 (1976) ("Within limits, the
[trial]
judge
may
control
the
scope
of
rebuttal
may
be
introduced
to
explain,
repel,
contradict
or
1986); see also United States v. Cepeda Penes, 577 F.2d 754, 760
(1st Cir. 1978).
- 11 -
We
find
no
such
abuse
of
discretion
here.
Most
In sum, it
Sequestration of Witnesses
Angiuoni also argues that the district court's failure
- 12 -
615 provides that, "[a]t a party's request, the court must order
witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses'
testimony.
Fed. R. Evid.
Angiuoni
tries
characterize
his
counsel's
request
from
counsel,
the
district
court
F.3d 104, 126 (1st Cir. 2004); see also United States v. De Jongh,
- 13 -
Thus,
the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to sequester
witnesses sua sponte.
C.
Angiuoni
contends
that
the
district
court
officers
and
superiors
in
the
Department,
including
then
listed
"[e]xamples
of
incidents
and
comments
that
towards
[veterans]"
may
be
relevant
factor
in
see also Hance v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 571 F.3d 511, 518 (6th Cir.
2009); Leisek v. Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir.
- 15 -
2002).
Affairs,
(considering
the
414
fact
F.
that
App'x
other
274,
veterans
(Fed.
were
Cir.
2011)
selected
for
- 16 -