Collier v. Eastridge et al

Filing 140

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Granting 80 Motion in Limine. 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-596-MHW
Plaintiff,
v.
TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP, LLC,
a Louisiana limited liability company;
DAVID EASTRIDGE, an individual;
NU-WEST INDUSTRIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, d/b/a Agrium
Conda Phosphate Industries, and JACK
DANIELL, an individual,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion in limine filed by defendants Nu-West Industries,
Inc., and Jack Daniell ("Defendants"). (Dkt. 80). The motion is fully briefed and at issue.
For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant the motion.
ANALYSIS
The factual background of this case was set forth in detail in the Court's June 22,
2011 Order (Dkt. 40) and will not be repeated here. Defendants seek to exclude any
statements concerning or reference to four events that they claim the Court's June 22
Order held cannot constitute or contribute to Collier's hostile workplace claim. The

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 1

events are: (1) Daniell’s request that Collier train employees about proper aerosol can
disposal and use of face shields, (2) Daniell’s anger over workplace housekeeping, (3) the
“tool crib” incident, and (4) the allegation that Daniell came within several yards of
Collier while she oversaw moving of some equipment.
Defendants also seek clarification from the Court that Collier’s hostile workplace
claim is moving forward as a single incident claim and not a totality of the circumstances
claim, as Collier argues in response to this motion.
Incidents
In evaluating whether these three incidents were admissible to support Collier’s
hostile workplace claims, the Court’s June 22 Order held that these incidents “do not, as a
matter of law, constitute a hostile workplace." (Dkt. 40: June 22 Order at 22). The Court
reasoned that none of these incidents could be attributed to Collier’s gender and that,
therefore, Collier may not use them to support her hostile workplace claims against
Turner and Agrium. However, the Court did not evaluate whether they are admissible to
support her retaliation claim.
In support of her retaliation claim, Collier must show that she suffered an adverse
employment action because she opposed a practice of her employer made unlawful by
Title VII, such as discrimination against an employee based on her gender. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000(e)-3(a). In order to be a protected activity, Collier's opposition must have been
directed toward a discriminatory act, gender discrimination, by an employer or an agent of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 2

an employer. EEOC v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1013-1014 (9th Cir.
1983). Here, the record establishes that Collier complained of Daniell's gender
discrimination at the August 4, 2008 meeting with Eastridge. That complaint is her
protected activity and it was directed at her employer, as required. She made the
complaint upon allegedly learning that Daniell had an issue with her gender and that he
was "old school." In an October 28, 2011 Order, the Court held that, assuming a proper
foundation is laid, both of these sentiments were admissible at trial. (Dkt. 112).
When deciding whether to admit evidence regarding the four incidents, the Court
must first determine whether they are relevant to Collier's retaliation claim, and then
weigh whether their probative value is substantially outweighed by their danger of unfair
prejudice to the defendants. Leaning against a finding of relevance is Judge Winmill's
earlier determination that, as a matter of law, these incidents were not related to Collier's
gender. This is particularly important, as Collier's protected complaint is that she was a
victim of gender discrimination. Moreover, even if they are relevant to Collier's claim,
the Court finds that they could confuse the jury so as to cause unfair prejudice in a way
that a limiting instruction would not be able to cure. For each of these reasons, the Court
grants the defendants' motion to the extent it seeks to exclude any mention of: (1)
Daniell’s request that Collier train employees about proper aerosol can disposal and use
of face shields, (2) Daniell’s anger over workplace housekeeping, (3) the “tool crib”
incident, and (4) the allegation that Daniell came within several yards of Collier while she

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 3

oversaw moving of some equipment.
Single Incident v. Totality of the Circumstances
In her response to this motion, Collier correctly argues that hostile workplace
claims may be established either by a single incident or a totality of the circumstances.
See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). In Harris, the Supreme Court held
that "whether an environment is hostile or abusive can only be determined by looking at
all the circumstances." Id. at 23. Relevant circumstances may include "the frequency of
the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or
humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an
employee's work performance." Id. Single incident hostile workplace claims are valid but
rare. See Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 925-27 (9th Cir. 2000). No matter
how the claim is brought, the analysis focuses on the discriminatory conduct.
In its June 22 Order, the Court determined that (1) Daniell’s request that Collier
train employees about proper aerosol can disposal and use of face shields, (2) Daniell’s
anger over workplace housekeeping, (3) the “tool crib” incident, and (4) the allegation
that Daniell came within several yards of Collier while she oversaw moving of some
equipment were not part of Collier's hostile workplace claim because they were not
related to Collier's gender. The Order specifically held that "as a matter of law" these
incidents cannot constitute the basis for Collier's hostile workplace claim.
Against this backdrop, the Court instructs the parties that Collier's hostile

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 4

workplace claim proceeds as a single-incident claim supported by the September 10, 2008
belly-bumping incident.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Motion in Limine (Dkt. 80) is GRANTED.
The parties shall exclude any mention of: (1) Daniell’s request that Collier train
employees about proper aerosol can disposal and use of face shields, (2) Daniell’s anger
over workplace housekeeping, (3) the “tool crib” incident, and (4) the allegation that
Daniell came within several yards of Collier while she oversaw moving of some
equipment.
It is also ordered that Collier's hostile workplace claim moves forward as a single
incident claim.
DATED: November 23, 2011

Honorable Mikel H. Williams
United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 5