NATCHEZ — A federal judge denied the request by the now former superintendent and assistant superintendent of the Natchez-Adams School District to either toss out the jury verdict against them or grant them a new trial.

The denial came Wednesday, a day after the NASD board of trustees voted to terminate Superintendent Frederick Hill’s contract. The judge’s order also came the same day the board accepted Deputy Superintendent Tanisha Smith’s resignation.

In the case in question, a federal civil jury found Hill, Smith and the NASD were liable for creating a hostile work environment — including racial discrimination against the white plaintiff — before forcing former West Elementary Principal Cindy Idom into retirement.

The jury verdict was handed down in September 2015, and the final judgment was issued in January, giving plaintiff Cindy Idom $668,000 in back pay, damages and legal fees, of which $75,000 in damages were assessed against Hill and $25,000 against Smith.

With this ruling, the defendants will have to appeal the decision to a higher court if they intend to keep fighting the case.

In the request for a new trial, the defendants had argued that the evidence did not warrant the final verdict, the plaintiff failed to prove discrimination, the plaintiffs had made late filings for which the defense did not have time to prepare, and that jury instructions were incomplete.

They also argued that jurors slept during portions of the trial, making a fair verdict impossible.

In his ruling denying the request, U.S. District Court Judge David Bramlette wrote that most of the objections were waived when the defendants did not raise them at trial.

He likewise wrote “considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could have arrived at the conclusion that Idom was … subject to a racially hostile work environment,” and again later in the ruling said, “a reasonable jury could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that Idom was qualified for her Principal position and suffered an adverse employment action on account of her race.”

Addressing the sleeping jurors claim, Bramlette wrote that the court noticed early in the trial that two jurors’ eyes appeared to be closed.

“The Court mentioned this to the parties and also to a security officer who responded to the Court that one juror’s eyes appeared to be closed, but that the other juror was merely looking down making notes on a notepad which was in his lap,” Bramlette wrote. “The Court instructed the security officer to remind the jurors in open court that they must remain attentive at all times, and this was done.”

After that, the court monitored the jury, Bramlette wrote, and observed all jurors were attentive for the remainder of the trial.

“The defendants have failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by any inattention on the part of one or more jurors,” he wrote. “Moreover, they did not raise any objection at trial as to any ‘sleeping’ jurors, or the Court’s treatment of the issue, the instant Motion being the first time the defendants have raised the issue.”

When voting to terminate Hill’s contract this week, school board trustees cited the court case as the prevailing factor in their decision.

Hill notified the board Wednesday he intends to appeal the board’s decision to terminate his employment contract.