
    L. Ronald BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LASSITER-WARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-13599.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 20, 2015.
    David H. Spalter, Kimberly D. Webb, Jill S. Schwartz, Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, PA, Winter Park, FL, Michael Farrell, Farrell Law, PA, Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert Alden Swift, Kristyne Elizabeth Kennedy, Cole Scott & Kissane, PA, Caryn Diamond Shaw, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable J. Randal Hall, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument by counsel for plaintiff L. Ronald Brown (“plaintiff’) and defendant Lassiter-Ware, Inc. (“defendant”), this Court finds as follows.

We find no reversible error in the district court’s August 16, 2013 order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.01, et seq.; and denying the defendant’s motion with respect to the plaintiffs claims arising under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. We also find no reversible error in any of the district court’s other pretrial rulings.

We further find that the district court properly submitted the plaintiffs FMLA claims to the jury. Following the presentation of the plaintiffs case at trial, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs FMLA claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a); the district court took this motion under advisement. At the conclusion of all evidence, the defendant asked if it needed to renew its Rule 50 motion; the district court responded that it was not necessary as the motion was still under advisement, and the district court’s subsequent order treated the motion as a renewed motion.

After the jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff $250,000 in connection with his FMLA claims, the district court granted the defendant’s Rule 50 motion and then entered judgment in favor of the defendant on July 18, 2014. After careful review of the record evidence, we conclude that the district court erred in granting the defendant’s Rule 50 motion as to the plaintiffs FLMA claims and in setting aside the jury verdict. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions that the district court reinstate the jury verdict and enter judgment in the amount of $250,000 for the plaintiff against the defendant on the plaintiffs FMLA claims.

REVERSED and REMANDED.  