Buckley v. University of Arkansas Board of Trustees

Filing 53

ORDER denying deft's 27 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 1/20/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
HILDA BUCKLEY
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:10CV02009 JLH

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas (hereinafter “UAMS”) has moved in
limine to exclude the testimony of UAMS employees Latonia Adams, Bonita Brown, Shirley Jones,
Marla McDaniel, Verla Sims, and Jean Walker, as well as former UAMS employees Santania King
and Carla Neal. UAMS argues that because these witnesses have no personal knowledge of the facts
and circumstances surrounding Hilda Buckley’s termination, their testimony is irrelevant under Rule
401 and therefore admissible under Rule 402. They contend that instances of an alleged hostile
work environment or discrimination against other employees would be irrelevant to Buckley’s claim.
In response, Buckley does not contend that any of these persons have personal knowledge of the
circumstances pertaining to her discharge, but she does argue that the testimony should be admitted
on the issue of motive or intent. The Eighth Circuit has said, “evidence of prior acts of
discrimination is relevant to an employer’s motive in discharging a plaintiff, even where this
evidence is not extensive enough to establish discriminatory animus by itself.” Estes v. Dick Smith
Ford, Inc., 856 F.2d 1097, 1104 (8th Cir. 1988). Therefore, testimony from these eight persons
regarding prior acts of discrimination could be relevant and admissible. The motion in limine is
denied. Document #27.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2012.

J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE