Page:Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State University (17-60856) (2021) Opinion.pdf/11

 have any idea as to why I asked some of those questions.” We have held that a [sic] curative instructions like those given by the district court operate against a finding of plain error. Considering the record as a whole, the district court’s questioning of witnesses does not constitute plain error or grounds for a new trial.

Jackson State argues that this court should reverse and render judgment on Taylor’s privacy claim because she failed to prove any element of her claim. We conclude that Taylor’s privacy claim fails as a matter of law.

For matters tried to the bench, “we review a trial court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” “Under clear error review, if the trial court’s factual findings are ‘plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, we must accept them, even though we might have weighed the evidence differently if we had been sitting as a trier of fact.’”

Taylor argues that Jackson State invaded her privacy when it released documents to The Clarion Ledger regarding her potential termination. Jackson State released nine pages of documents related to Taylor. Five of those pages related to Taylor’s complaint that Jackson State supported men’s teams and coaches to a greater degree than her team. Those five pages did not mention any allegations against Taylor. The remaining four pages apprised Taylor of the allegations against her, notified Taylor that she was being placed on administrative leave, and informed Taylor that the university intended to terminate her employment. The allegations were described as:
 * Student and Student-Athlete Well-Being