Collier v. Eastridge et al

Filing 131

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Granting in part and denying in part 81 Motion in Limine Regarding Status as "Employer"; Granting in part and denying in part 84 Motion in Limine to Exclude any Reference as to Turner or Eastridge as Their Agent. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

WANDA COLLIER,
Case No. 4:09-cv-00596-MHW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP,
L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability
company; NU-WEST INDUSTRIES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a
Agrium Conda Phosphate Industries; and
JACK DANIELL, an individual,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it two motions in limine filed by Defendants Nu-West
Industries, Inc. (“Agrium”) and Jack Daniell. Dkts. 81 and 84. The motions are fully
briefed and at issue. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant the motions in
part.
ANALYSIS
The factual background of this case was set forth in detail in Judge Winmill’s June
22, 2011 decision (Dkt. 40) on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and will not
be repeated here. Rather, the Court will presume the parties’ familiarity with that
decision and with the Court’s subsequent decision (Dkt. 93) denying Agrium’s motion to
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

exclude Plaintiff’s testimony regarding statements made by David Eastridge and Fred
Keller’s testimony regarding Jack Daniell. The Court notes that the motions in limine
were filed before the Court entered that subsequent decision.
1.

Motion in Limine Regarding Status as “Employer” (Dkt. 81)
In this motion, Agrium seeks to exclude any evidence, argument, or implication

that Agrium was Plaintiff’s “direct employer” or “joint employer” or that Daniell was
Plaintiff’s “supervisor.” Agrium notes that the Court held on summary judgment that
Plaintiff could proceed against Agrium with (1) a Title VII hostile work environment
claim based solely on an alleged “belly bump” incident, and; (2) a Title VII interference
claim based on the allegation that Daniell somehow influenced Turner’s decision to
eliminate her position during a reduction in force and that he did so for discriminatory
reasons. Dkt. 81-1 at 3.
In order to prevail on her claims, Plaintiff must establish that Agrium is a direct
employer, a joint employer with Turner, or an indirect employer in that it interfered with
her employment relationship with Turner. See E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 351
F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2003). It is undisputed that Agrium was not Plaintiff’s direct
employer.
Agrium contends that Plaintiff committed herself – in her response to Agrium’s
summary judgment motion – to the theory that Agrium was an indirect employer by virtue
of interfering with her employment relationship with Turner to the exclusion of the joint
employer theory. Dkt. 81-1 at 6. Agrium also noted that Plaintiff admitted as much in
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

her response to the pending motion in limine. In her response to the pending motion,
Plaintiff states that Agrium is “essentially correct in it summary of the claims,” but she
also maintains that she should be permitted to present evidence of Agrium’s status as a
joint employer with Turner. Dkt. 106 at 1-2.
In its reply, Agrium clarified that it seeks to limit the language used to describe the
parties and their relationships and does not seek to prevent presentation of evidence on
those issues. Dkt. 114 at 3. Agrium “simply asks” the Court not to permit Plaintiff or her
counsel to state that Agrium was Plaintiff’s employer or that Daniell was her supervisor.
Dkt. 114 at 4.
While much of Plaintiff’s response to the summary judgment motion related to
interference, she also cited the joint employment theory of liability. See Dkt. 34 at 2.
Judge Winmill’s summary judgment order indicated that Daniell and Agrium recognized
that an employee could have “joint employers” under certain circumstances. See Dkt. 40
at 20. However, the Order indicated that the Court could not resolve that issue on
summary judgment. Id. at 21. It found questions of fact regarding whether Agrium and
Turner were joint employers for Title VII purposes. Id. at 24. In other words, the Order
left open the question of whether Agrium and Turner were joint employers pending
presentation of evidence on the issue at trial.
The main theory of Plaintiff’s case appears to be interference. However, she is not
foreclosed from presenting evidence to support the joint employer theory. Nor is she
foreclosed from presenting evidence to show that Daniell was her supervisor. That said,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

however, the Court finds that it would be inappropriate and prejudicial for Plaintiff to
utilize that terminology in opening argument or to incorporate that terminology during the
questioning of witnesses.
After Plaintiff has presented all of her evidence on the employment/supervisor
relationship between Agrium and herself and Daniell and herself, and if she still wishes to
assert that Agrium was her joint employer and Daniell was her supervisor, the Court will
excuse the jury and hear argument at that point. If the Court determines Plaintiff has
made the requisite evidentiary showing, Plaintiff may argue these points during final
argument.
2.

Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Reference to Turner or Eastridge as Their
Agent (Dkt. 84).
In this motion, Agrium seeks to exclude any evidence, argument, or implication to

the jury that either Defendant Turner or Defendant Eastridge was an agent of either NuWest Industries or Jack Daniell. Agrium contends that (1) the agency issue is relevant
only to a preliminary evidentiary determination by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
104(a) and 801(d)(2)(D) on the admissibility of Eastridge’s hearsay statements; (2)
interference with the employment relationship with Turner and not an agency relationship
is determinative of liability on Title VII claims; (3) the undisputed evidence establishes
that the Turner Defendants were not Agrium’s agents; and (4) “significant influence”
does not constitute an agency relationship.
In her response, Plaintiff agrees that no agency inquiry is required on an

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

interference claim and states that the Court has ruled twice that Eastridge’s hearsay
statement is admissible against Agrium. Plaintiff is incorrect on the latter point. Judge
Winmill ruled only that the statement was admissible against Agrium only for purposes of
summary judgment analysis. His decisions specifically stated on more than one occasion
that the final agency determination must be made at trial based on the evidence presented
by Plaintiff. Dkt. 40 at 12; Dkt. 112 at 4.
In its reply, Agrium agrees that Plaintiff is free to introduce relevant evidence on
the agency issue to the Court for its determination of whether the Eastridge statement is
admissible against Agrium.
Agrium also argues in its supporting memorandum that under the agency analysis,
“the Court must inescapably find that the Turner Defendants were not agents of Agrium.”
Dkt. 84-1 at 8. The Court cannot make that finding at this time. It would appear that
Agrium is asking the Court to ignore Judge Winmill’s summary judgment order or is
effectively bringing another dispositive motion on the agency issue. The Court will
neither ignore Judge Winmill’s order nor entertain a new dispositive motion. However, it
will grant Agrium’s motion in part.
The Court agrees that an agency analysis is irrelevant to the Title VII claims.
However, it has obviously not yet heard the foundational evidence of agency from
Plaintiff. Unless and until the Court finds an agency relationship existed, Plaintiff is
prohibited from arguing, implying, or presenting evidence to the jury that either Turner or
Eastridge were agents of Agrium or Jack Daniell. Again, when Plaintiff determines that it
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

has presented all of its evidence on agency, the Court will excuse the jury and hear
argument from counsel.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Nu-West’s and Jack Daniell’s Motion in Limine Regarding Status as
“Employer” (Dkt. 81) is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above.

2.

Nu-West’s and Jack Daniell’s Motion in Limine to Exclude any Reference
as to Turner or Eastridge as Their Agent (Dkt. 84) is GRANTED IN PART
as set forth above.
DATED: November 8, 2011

Honorable Mikel H. Williams
United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6