Page:Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State University (17-60856) (2021) Opinion.pdf/8

 supports its instruction. In Hoffman, the Mississippi Supreme Court stated that the issue before the court was whether Hoffman breached his contract, not “whether [Hoffman’s] employer has failed to act upon similar past deficiencies.” But here, unlike in Hoffman, the question of breach implicates Jackson State’s past handling of similar situations because the jury had to decide whether Taylor performed her duties in good faith and whether any violations she committed were deliberate, serious, and willful. Thus, Hoffman is not on point. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give Jackson State’s proposed instruction.

Jackson State argues that the district court’s overall conduct in this case justifies a new trial on the breach of contract claim, or, if the panel remands, transfer to a different judge. Jackson State contends that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the arbitration provision in Taylor’s contract to become an issue at trial and by questioning witnesses in a manner that suggested partiality toward Taylor.

The district court is afforded broad discretion in handling trial procedure and the conduct of trial. “However, discretion has its limits.” We must decide whether the cumulative effect of the district court’s decisions and conduct amounted to an abuse of the court’s broad discretion. Furthermore,