Page:Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State University (17-60856) (2021) Opinion.pdf/4

 court found that Jackson State was liable and awarded Taylor $200,000 in damages.

After the district court entered final judgment, Jackson State filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a remittitur of damages on the breach of contract and invasion of privacy claims. Taylor then filed a motion for new trial regarding her Title IX retaliation claim, contending that the district court improperly instructed the jury on causation. The district court denied both motions. Both parties appeal.

Jackson State asks the court to reverse and render judgment in its favor on Taylor’s breach of contract claim, or, alternatively, to order a new trial of that claim before a different district judge.

Jackson State argues that Taylor’s breach of contract claim fails because Taylor never showed that Jackson State breached Taylor’s employment contract. We review a grant or denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. “Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if ‘there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for [a] party on [an] issue.’” “Reviewing all of the evidence in the record, a ‘court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make