In Raymond v. 1199SEIU Nat’l Benefit Fund, No. 25-707 (2d Cir. July 23, 2026), the panel holds that it cannot review a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) order denying a new trial on quirky ground that apparently no other circuit follows.
Following a jury trial for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act which plaintiff Raymond lost, he filed a timely post-trial motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a). “He argued that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the weight of the evidence because [defendant] NBF did not accommodate Raymond, and that it was clear that NBF required Raymond to either return to work ‘without restriction’ or be terminated, which is a per se violation of the ADA.” The district court denied the motion.
On appeal, the Second Circuit holds that the order denying a new trial is not appealable.
“Our caselaw on this issue is somewhat confounding. Just last year, we concluded that there is ‘ambiguity in our precedents’ regarding whether a district court’s denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds is reviewable . . . . We doubt, though, that our precedents can be viewed that way. Instead, we conclude that our precedents firmly establish that such a denial is not reviewable on appeal.”
The panel holds that the circuit’s consistent line of authority – though “seemingly odd” – provides “that the reviewability of a Rule 59(a) weight-of-the-evidence decision depends on the outcome of the district judge’s decision: If the district judge overturns the jury verdict on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, it is reviewable; if the judge upholds a jury verdict over a losing party’s motion that the verdict contravenes the weight of the evidence, that decision is not reviewable. That is, if a district court denies a Rule 59(a) motion to vacate a verdict, we cannot review that denial.”
The panel holds that because Raymond’s motion was denied, “we cannot review the district court’s order [and] we must dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.” It notes, though, “what seems to us as oddness of this non-reviewability precedent. All of our sister circuits appear to allow review of Rule 59(a) motions where a judge denies a losing party’s weight-of-the-evidence motion. [Citing cases.] But of course, this panel is bound by our current precedent.”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 