Page:Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State University (17-60856) (2021) Opinion.pdf/9

 even if the district court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling, we will affirm that ruling if the district court’s error was harmless.

Assuming, arguendo, that the district court erred in allowing Taylor to present evidence regarding the arbitration provision, that error was harmless. The district court instructed the jury that breach of the arbitration provision “cannot support a breach of contract determination.” The district court stated that Taylor was not “seeking to recover any sum of money for an alleged breach of the alleged arbitration clause.” The district court reiterated that the arbitration issue should only be considered with regards to the Title VII and Title IX claims, which the jury rejected. Further, the district court explained precisely how the jury could reach a verdict for Taylor on the breach of contract claim—by finding that Jackson State did not have cause to fire her. Any error was harmless and does not justify ordering a new trial.

Jackson State also argues that the district court improperly challenged the credibility of witnesses in front of the jury. Jackson State did not object at trial, so we review for plain error. “Plain error review requires four determinations: whether there was error at all; whether it was plain or obvious; whether the defendant has been substantially harmed by the error; and whether this court should exercise its discretion to correct the error in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Generally, a judge “may comment on the evidence … [and] question witnesses and elicit facts not yet adduced or clarify those previously presented,” but must do so in a neutral