## Facts

- Carmen Alverio worked as a food demonstrator for Sam’s Warehouse Club from 1992 to 1996 at two Illinois stores.
- She alleged that an assistant manager, Terrence Lloyd, sexually harassed her over several years through workplace conduct she found offensive.
- Alverio reported Lloyd’s conduct only to her immediate supervisor, who allegedly did not escalate the complaint.
- After a 1995 incident involving a mistaken reprimand, the alleged harassment stopped.
- Sam’s denied liability and argued that, even if harassment occurred, it was entitled to an affirmative defense because Alverio did not use the company’s reporting channels beyond her immediate supervisor.
- The case was tried to a jury; the venire included 11 men and 3 women.
- Sam’s used its three peremptory challenges to strike the three women; Alverio raised a gender-based peremptory challenge under Batson/J.E.B.
- The trial judge required Sam’s to give gender-neutral reasons, accepted those reasons, and denied the challenge; the jury returned a verdict for Sam’s.
- After trial but before post-trial motions were decided, the trial judge recused under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) due to a financial-interest conflict; a new judge denied Alverio’s post-trial motions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in rejecting Alverio’s Batson/J.E.B. challenge after Sam’s struck all women from the venire and offered gender-neutral explanations.
2. Whether the trial court’s exclusion of certain testimony was an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial.
3. Whether the trial judge’s post-trial recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) required vacatur of the verdict or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Sam’s Warehouse Club.
- The court held the trial court did not clearly err in crediting Sam’s facially gender-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes and finding no purposeful discrimination.
- The court held the challenged evidentiary rulings were within the trial court’s discretion and did not justify a new trial.
- The court held the post-trial recusal did not retroactively invalidate the trial or earlier rulings absent a showing that a disqualifying financial interest existed during trial or affected the proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Batson’s three-step framework applies to gender-based peremptory challenges in civil cases under J.E.B.
- Once a prima facie case is shown, the striking party must provide facially gender-neutral reasons; the challenger then bears the burden to prove purposeful discrimination (pretext).
- Trial courts’ Batson findings largely turn on credibility and are reviewed on appeal with substantial deference, reversed only for clear error.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a new trial requires a showing of prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.
- A post-trial recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) does not automatically require vacatur of prior proceedings; the party seeking relief must show the disqualifying interest existed at the time of the relevant proceeding or otherwise compromised fairness.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the defense verdict, concluding that Sam’s gender-neutral explanations for striking the only female venire members were reasonably credited by the trial court, the evidentiary exclusions did not warrant a new trial, and the trial judge’s later financial-interest recusal did not invalidate the earlier trial proceedings without proof that a disqualifying interest existed during trial or affected the outcome.


Alverio v. Sam's Warehouse Club, Inc., 253 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2001)