Soliday v. 7-Eleven Inc.

Filing 113

OPINION AND ORDER granting 98 Motion in limine to exclude EEOC determination. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/20/2011. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JAMES SOLIDAY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.

2:09-cv-807-FtM-29SPC

7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine to Exclude EEOC Determination (Doc. #98) filed on April 11,
2011.

Defendant’s Opposition (Doc. #106) was filed on April 18,

2011.
Plaintiff seeks an order precluding the admission of the
findings of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
and/or the Florida Commission on Human Relations concerning the
charge of discrimination filed by plaintiff. The admission of such
evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc., 513 F.3d 1261, 1288 (11th
Cir.

2008).

The

Eleventh

Circuit

summarized

the

general

principles:
EEOC determinations are generally admissible under the
public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule
contained in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), unless
“the sources of information or other circumstances
indicate lack of trustworthiness” sufficient to justify
exclusion from evidence. Barfield v. Orange County, 911
F.2d 644, 650-51 (11th Cir.1990); see Fed.R.Evid.
803(8)(C). However, EEOC determinations may be excluded

from evidence in a jury trial under Rule 403 where the
probative value of the determination is “outweighed by
the danger of creating unfair prejudice in the minds of
a jury.” Barfield, 911 F.2d at 650.
Blanton v. Univ. of Fla., 273 F. App’x 797, 804 (11th Cir. 2008).
The liberal admissibility of EEOC determinations does not apply to
jury trial situations. Lathem v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Servs.,
172 F.3d 786, 791 (11th Cir. 1999).

“Instead, the district court

must make the admissibility determination on an individual basis,
considering the evidence's probative value and the danger of unfair
prejudice.”

Id.

Defendant quotes the pertinent part of the EEOC letter of
determination as follows:
The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon
its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that
information obtained establishes violations of the
statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is
in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to
any other issues that might be construed as having been
raised by this charge.
(Doc. #106, p. 3.)1

The Court concludes that this non-finding is

not relevant to this case, and that any minimal relevance is
outweighed by prejudice, the danger of jury confusion, and the
potential waste of judicial resources.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:

1

While defendant refers to Exhibit A, no such exhibit is
attached to the Response.
-2-

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude EEOC Determination
(Doc. #98) is GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
April, 2011.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-

20th

day of