Walden v. Flying Fish Bar & Grill, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER finding that the proposed pretrial order, attached Exhibit A to this Order, shall constitute the Pretrial Order in this case; and denying as moot 36 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge J. Randal Hall on 1/3/2025. (kjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
*

RASHONDA WALDEN,

*

*

Plaintiff,

*

*

V.

CV 423-201

*

FLYING FISH BAR & GRILL, INC.,

*
*

Defendant.

*
*

ORDER

In

preparation for the

trial of

this

matter, and upon

instruction by the Court, the Parties submitted a consolidated

proposed pretrial order on November 6, 2024.

(Doc. 35.)

At the pretrial conference held on December 18, 2024, the
Court reviewed the proposed pretrial order with the Parties.

No

modifications to the proposed pretrial order were made at that
time.

The Court also heard argument regarding Plaintiff's motion

in limine (Doc. 36), which the Court then orally denied as moot.

IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

the

proposed

pretrial

order,

attached to this Order as Exhibit A, shall constitute the PRETRIAL

ORDER in this case.

Furthermore, as the Court stated during the

pretrial conference. Plaintiff's motion in limine (Doc. 36) is
DENIED AS MOOT.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

ay of January,

2025.

HONORABLElJ. RAND^ HALL
UNITED SmTES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Exhibit
A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

RASHONDA WALDEN,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
4:23-cv-00201-JRH

V.

FLYING FISH BAR & GRILL,INC.,

Defendant.

PRETRIAL ORDER

1.

Proposed Factual Stipulations:

The parties do not propose any factual stipulations.
2.

See Plaintiffs Attachment B

No proposed Defense voir dire
3.

Attorneys to be qualified:

Plaintiff: Artur Davis, Jerilyn Gardner, HKM Employment Attorneys (Plaintiffs
propose to limit qualifications to members ofthe firm involved in trying this case because
the firm has no Southern District of OA physical presence and has over 60 attorneys
nationwide).

Defendant: John Carson, Klyne Weaver,Phillips Carson, Carson & Phillips Law
Firm.

4.

42U.S.C.A. § 1331, 1343.

5.

There are no unresolved motions.

6.

Discovery concluded in this matter on March 28, 2024.

7.

The names ofthe parties are complete and correct and there are questions or joined

or misjoinder.
8.

Outline of PlaintifPs Case

Plaintiff Rashonda Walden worked for approximately two and a half weeks in

April 2023 at the Flying Fish on Wilmington Island. Herjob was to deliver meals from
the kitchen to tables in the restaurant. Ms. Walden alleges that during these two weeks,

she was subjected on multiple occasions to racial slurs and other belittling remarks by a
coworker and a manager. On April 30,2023, Ms. Walden maintains that she complained
about the racist behavior toward her to the owner John McMahom and that he fired her

the next day. Ms. Walden asserts two claims, that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment based on her race. She also contends that she was fired because she

complained about racial discrimination in her workplace. Ms. Walden seeks
compensatory damages for the emotional distress that she says she experienced and she
seeks punitive damages against the Flying Fish for willfully violating her rights not to be
subjected to race discrimination.
9.

Outline of Defense Case'

Plaintiff Rashonda Walden was hired as a food runner at Defendant Flying Fish's

restaurant on Wilmington Island in Chatham County, Georgia in April of2023. Plaintiff
Walden worked approximately 8 shifts as a food runner and quickly decided that she did
not like running food for the servers whom Plaintiff Walden deemed to be lazy and not
worth running food for. By the fourth shift. Plaintiff Walden became hostile towards
management and fellow employees. Defendant Flying Fish's owner, Michael McMahon,
decided that the employment was not working out and terminated the employer-employee
relationship.

10.

Statutory Provision for Liability

Plaintiff brings both of her claims under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981. Plaintiff seeks
punitive damages under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981a(b)(l), which requires proofthat the
employer "engaged in a discriminatory practice...with reckless indifference to the
federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual."

Plaintiff asserts that the repeated occasions in which she was subjected to racial
slurs ofracially offensive language were severe or pervasive enough that it created a
hostile working environment. Plaintiff also alleges that but for her complaints about
discriminatory conduct, she would not have been fired.
Plaintiff objects to the Defense formulation as inappropriately argumentative in town.

11.

NA

12.

NA

13.

NA

14. The Plaintiff has the burden to prove her case by a preponderance ofthe evidence
and will present the first opening statement, first closing statement, and rebuttal
statement.

15.

PlaintifFs "Will CaiP* witnesses:
Rashonda Walden

Nicholas King
Savannah Walden

PlaintifFs ^*May Call" Witness:
Michael McMahon

Defendant's **Will CalF* Witnesses:
McKenzie Hendrix
Cameron Bonds

Jennifer Wingo
Lilith Anderson.

16.

Documents to be presented.

The parties do not anticipate that any documents will be presented as trial exhibits.
17.

The parties will not offer any deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony.

18.

The parties will prepare briefing consistent with the Courfs scheduling order

regarding any motions in limine.
19. Plaintiff estimates that counting opening statements, it will take one day to present
her case. Defendant estimates one half of a day (4 hours) to present the defense.
20.

Settlement prospects

Plaintiff has offered to settle the case and proposes mediation ofthis case with a

United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant has not offered to settle and represents that
there is no possibility ofsettlement.

21. Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion in limine to exclude any evidence offered by
Defendant that Plaintiff made allegations of racially discriminatory conduct while she
was employed at any other job.

22.

Plaintiff opposes bifurcation of damages and liability.

23.

See response to No. 22.

24.

NA

25. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing constitutes a PRETRIAL
ORDER in the above case(s), that it supersedes the pleadings which are hereby
amended to conform hereto and that this PRETRIAL ORDER shall not be

amended except by ORDER OF THE COURT.

This 6th day of November, 2024.

HKM Employment Attorneys LLP
s/Artur Davis

Artur Davis (admitted pro hac vice)
ASB-3672-D56A

2024 3rd Ave. North, Suite 212

Birmingham, AL 35203
Direct: 205-881-0935

[e-mail]

Shahrzad "Sheri" Bagheri
GABarNo. 174460

3344 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 800
Office #35

Atlanta, OA 30326
Direct: 404-618-3966

[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
John Carson Jr.
s/John Carson Jr.

Phillips Carson & Phillips
1901 Abercom St.

Savannah, GA 31401
Tel: [phone]

iohncarsonir@.gniail.com

Attorney for Defendant

J. RANDALL HALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs Attachment Bl: proposed voir dire:

1.

Have any of you ever been employed by a restaurant or eating establishment in

any capacity?

2.

Have any of you ever been a customer at the Flying Fish restaurant in Savannah?

3.
4.
5.

Have any of you ever been named as a defendant in a civil suit?
Do any of you belong to any community, civic, or political organizations?
Do any of you believe that race discrimination is no longer a serious issue in our

community?

6.
Would any of you have a reluctance to award financial damages against a small
business even if you concluded that they were liable for the conduct alleged?
7.
What is your primary source ofreceiving news about both local national issues?
8.
Have any of you had to testify in a civil trial; ifso, describe the situation.
9.
Do any of you believe you have been discriminated against at work because of
your race; if so, describe the situation.