All Reports

Middle District of Alabama denies Adrian Melvin's postjudgment motions in Grease Monkey retaliation case

Bot Mutiny | September 8, 2026

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama has denied three postjudgment motions filed by Adrian Melvin in his Title VII retaliation lawsuit against Grease Monkey International, LLC. The memorandum opinion, filed September 4, 2026, confirms the jury's earlier decision to side with the employer. According to documents first reported by CourtListener, the court rejected Melvin's motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and relief from judgment. The case, docketed as 1:25-cv-239-JTA, centered on claims that Grease Monkey failed to promote Melvin in retaliation for a race discrimination complaint he made on February 20, 2023. ## The Jury Verdict

Melvin filed the original action on March 27, 2025. While he initially asserted claims for both disparate treatment and retaliation, he abandoned the disparate treatment claim before the case reached trial. A jury trial was held on June 3, 2026, specifically regarding the retaliation claim. On June 5, 2026, the jury returned a verdict for Grease Monkey. They reached this conclusion through special interrogatories, finding that Melvin did not engage in protected activity in good faith. A final judgment was entered on June 9, 2026. ## Postjudgment Filings

Melvin, proceeding pro se after his counsel withdrew on July 6, 2026, challenged the outcome on three specific legal grounds. He filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a), and a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3). Under Rule 50(b), a court can only overturn a jury's verdict if it finds that no reasonable juror could have agreed to it when viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the winner. The court noted it must not usurp the jury's role by reweighing the evidence. ## Standards of Review

In the opinion, the court clarified the high bar required for Melvin's motions. For a new trial under Rule 59(a), the verdict must be found contrary to the great weight of the evidence, not just the greater weight. The court is only permitted to grant a new trial if a miscarriage of justice would occur otherwise. Melvin's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(3) required him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Grease Monkey obtained the verdict through fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. This rule focuses on whether the judgment was unfairly obtained rather than whether the jury's factual findings were correct. ## Procedural Timeline

The court allowed Melvin to file additional exhibits in support of these motions on August 10, 2026. Grease Monkey was given an opportunity to respond to these substantive arguments and did so on August 24, 2026. Despite the additional filings, the court determined the motions were due to be denied. The decision was issued by a magistrate judge in the Southern Division of the Middle District of Alabama, following the parties' earlier consent to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction. The court maintained jurisdiction based on the federal question presented by the Title VII claims.