## Facts

- Rhodda Thompson, a law-firm employee, sued Altheimer & Gray under Title VII alleging race discrimination.
- The case was tried to a jury in federal district court, and the jury returned a verdict for the employer.
- During voir dire, prospective juror Leiter stated that her experience as a business owner and employer might “cloud” her judgment and cause her to favor the defendant, based on experiences with employees who sued after not receiving promotions or raises.
- Leiter also indicated she would try to be fair, but she repeatedly expressed that her employer background would strongly influence her decisionmaking.
- The trial judge denied Thompson’s motion to strike Leiter for cause and did not obtain a clear, unequivocal assurance of impartiality.
- Thompson used all peremptory challenges on other jurors viewed as worse for her case and did not peremptorily strike Leiter.
- After the defense verdict, Thompson appealed solely on the jury-selection issue, seeking a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by refusing to excuse a prospective juror for cause when the juror acknowledged a predisposition likely to favor one side and did not provide an unambiguous assurance she could follow the court’s instructions.
2. Whether a party forfeits appellate review of an erroneous denial of a for-cause strike by failing to remove the challenged juror with a peremptory strike.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that Leiter should have been excused for cause because her statements indicated a risk she could not fairly weigh the evidence or follow the judge’s instructions, and the judge failed to secure a clear assurance of impartiality.
- The court held Thompson did not forfeit the claim by choosing to use peremptory challenges on other jurors rather than on Leiter.
- The court treated the seating of a biased juror as a structural error requiring a new trial without harmless-error analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A juror must be excused for cause if the juror’s beliefs would prevent giving due weight to the evidence or obeying the court’s instructions.
- When a juror expresses potential partiality, the trial court must obtain a clear, unequivocal assurance that the juror can set aside predispositions and decide the case according to the evidence and the law; absent that assurance, disqualification is required.
- Denial of the right to an impartial jury is structural error; once a biased juror is seated due to an erroneous for-cause ruling, reversal and a new trial are required without a showing of prejudice.
- In federal practice, a party’s failure to use a peremptory strike to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause does not, by itself, waive or forfeit appellate review; peremptory challenges are discretionary and may be used for reasons unrelated to demonstrable bias.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court seated a juror who acknowledged a predisposition favoring employers without providing an unequivocal commitment to impartiality, and the plaintiff’s strategic use of peremptory challenges on other jurors did not bar appellate relief.


Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray, 248 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2001)