Kim Davis Will Appeal Verdict in Ermold Case

---

ASHLAND, KY – Liberty Counsel will file a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning next week in response to the jury rendering $100,000 against former Rowan County Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis in Ermold v. Davis. Essentially, the jury had no basis or evidence to support their verdict.

Liberty Counsel will then appeal the case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This Ermold jury verdict is unsound and easily sets this case up for an eventual route to the U.S. Supreme Court where religious freedom will be central to the argument along with the issue that the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

The Yates v. Davis and Ermold v. Davis cases each involve a same-sex couple who sued Davis in 2015 following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision regarding “same-sex marriage.” During the trial, two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments in both cases. In Yates v. Davis, the jury awarded zero damages because that is what the evidence required. The plaintiffs in that case originally asked for $300,000 in damages.

However, without any evidentiary support, the Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff. The evidence presented at trial simply does not support that verdict. The plaintiffs asked for $50,000 each in damages, alleging that David Ermold was terminated from the University of Pikeville because of the Kim Davis case. During the trial, the Human Resource Director testified that was not true and that Ermold’s position was downsized along with other positions. Losing their basis to allege damages, the Ermold plaintiffs then changed gears during the trial to allege they should receive damages for hurt feelings.

Judge Bunning also improperly allowed questions concerning whether any potential juror had religious or moral objections to “same-sex marriage.” The judge overruled Liberty Counsel’s objection and that permitted the plaintiffs to exclude all jurors that have religious beliefs and those who had objections to “same-sex marriage.” That question essentially excluded jurors based on religion, which is unlawful under Batson v. Kentucky, J.E.B. v. Alabama, and a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1862.

In addition, under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge is prohibited from giving a case to the jury when the evidence presented during the trial is clearly insufficient to warrant any damages. Both David Ermold and David Moore testified under oath that “I do not know how to calculate the damages that Kim Davis caused us” and stated under oath that “maybe the violation has no value.” Plaintiffs are required to provide evidence of damages and it cannot be based on speculation or guesswork. Because the plaintiffs provided the jury with no evidence whatsoever to give the jury any basis upon which to enter a damages verdict, the judge should never have given the case to the jury. He should have entered a directed verdict stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence from which the jury could award damages. Binding Sixth Circuit law states that the mere testimony of a plaintiff that he was embarrassed, humiliated, etc., without any other evidence of damages, cannot suffice to merit a damages award. The judge denied Liberty Counsel’s motion and ignored the relevant law on the issue. Giving the case to the jury was impermissible, and that makes the verdict for damages reversible error.

Liberty Counsel argued that Davis is not liable for any damages because she was entitled to a religious accommodation from issuing marriage licenses under her name and authority that conflicted with her religious beliefs. When the newly elected Republican Governor Matt Bevin took office in December 2015, he granted religious accommodation to all clerks by Executive Order. Then in April 2016, the legislature unanimously granted religious and conscience accommodation to all clerks from issuing marriage licenses that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Support Canada Free Press

However, Davis was entitled to an accommodation of her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage under both the First Amendment and Kentucky law and she should not be held liable for requesting an accommodation, which she did receive in December 2015. Even assuming Obergefell is not a flawed decision, which it is, the High Court’s opinion did not mean that same-sex couples have a right to receive a “marriage license” from a specific individual and it did not direct that every government official in America had a duty to put their stamp of approval on that “marriage license.”

Regarding Davis, the issue of liability and damages has never been reviewed. The matter that went to the U.S. Supreme Court a few years ago on qualified immunity involved a preliminary appeal. Since that time, the cases have had discovery, two hearings and now final judgments on liability and on damages. Therefore, this case is ready to go up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and from there to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “We look forward to appealing this decision for Kim Davis. We will argue religious accommodation under the First Amendment, and other state and federal laws. We will also argue that Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Yesterday’s jury verdict has paved the way for this case to go the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.

VIEW Comments