jury unanimously found that Plaintiff did not prove that the BOE, Community School District 21, Donald Weber, or Michael Miller “discriminated against her based on her religion,” (Tr. 1375), and it found that Plaintiff had not proven that the BOE, Community School District 21, Donald Weber, or Michael Miller “retaliated against her because of her complaining of religious discrimination or because she hired an attorney.” (Tr. 1376.) II. DISCUSSION A. Rule 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 1. Legal Standard In this Circuit, a party seeking to vacate a jury verdict and enter judgment as a matter of law carries a “heavy burden.” See Burke v. Spartanics Ltd., 252 F.3d 131, 136 (2d Cir.2001); Ryduchowski v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 203 F.3d 135, 142 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Judgment as a matter of law is only
recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict holding that district court erred in determining that jury verdict of noninfringement divested district court of jurisdiction to hear unenforceability counterclaim holding that the societal costs of retrial after a jury verdict of guilty are far too substantial to justify setting aside the verdict simply because of an error in the earlier grand jury proceedings holding district court erred in setting aside jury verdict and entering judgment as a matter of law holding that court erred as matter of law in failing to enter judgment for employer at close of plaintiffs implied employment contract action