Becknell v. University of Kentucky
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) GRANTING University of Kentucky's 39 MOTION in Limine; (2) any evidence, mention of or argument about the University's liability ins or appeals to the financial disparity between the parties is EXCLUDED; (3) any evidence, mention of or argument about findings made by the KY Unemployment Ins Commission pertaining to this dispute between the parties is EXCLUDED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 4/23/19.(KJR)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
LEE ANNA BECKNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
5:17-cv-490-JMH-MAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***
Plaintiff Lee Anna Becknell claims that the University of
Kentucky terminated her employment in retaliation for her use of
leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).1
The University
of Kentucky moves to exclude certain evidence at trial.
[DE 39].
First, the University moves to exclude presentation of any evidence
about the University’s liability insurance and other appeals of
financial disparity to the jury.
Second, the University moves to
prohibit presentation of evidence about the findings made by the
Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission related to this matter.
Becknell responded to the University’s motion [DE 44] and the
University replied [DE 45], making this matter ripe for review.
1
Plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim was resolved in the Court’s
recent memorandum opinion and order. [DE 57]. As such, the only
remaining issue for trial is whether termination of Becknell’s
employment constitutes FMLA retaliation. Additionally, a detailed
recitation of the underlying facts may be found in the Court’s
memorandum opinion and need not be repeated in this order.
1
After considering the parties’ briefing, the University’s
motion in limine [DE 39] is GRANTED.
Evidence of the University’s
liability insurance to prove wrongdoing must be excluded under
Federal Rule of Evidence 411.
Evidence of the financial disparity
between the parties is irrelevant and is excluded under Rule 401
and based on relevant case law.
Finally, evidence of the findings
of the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission is excluded
under Rule 403 but may be used for impeachment or some other
admissible purpose.
I.
A.
Analysis
Evidence of Liability Insurance and Financial Disparity
First, the University moves to exclude the presentation of
any evidence about the presence of liability insurance or the
financial disparity between the University of Kentucky and the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff does not oppose the University’s motion
in limine on these points.
As it pertains to the presence of liability insurance, this
evidence
is
specifically
prohibited
by
the
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence when the presence of liability insurance is used to prove
whether a person acted negligently or wrongfully. Rule 411 states,
“Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability
is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or
otherwise wrongfully.”
Fed. R. Evid. 411.
Of course, this
evidence may be admissible when used “for another purpose, such as
2
proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership,
or control.”
Id.
As a result, presentation of any evidence about
the University’s liability insurance, to the extent that it is
used to prove or suggest wrongdoing on the part of the University,
is excluded.
References to financial disparity between the University and
the Plaintiff must similarly be excluded because such references
may
deprive
the
prejudicial.
University
of
a
fair
trial
and
be
unfairly
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit has recognized that “[a]ppealing to the sympathy of jurors
through references to financial disparity is improper.”
City of
Cleveland v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 624 F.2d 749, 755-59 (6th Cir.
1980) (quoting Draper v. Airco, Inc., 580 F.2d 91, 95 (3d Cir.
1978)).
Moreover, even outside of the liability insurance context,
evidence
of
financial
disparity
between
the
University
and
Becknell in this case may be excluded under Rule 401 because it is
wholly irrelevant.
The financial disparity between the parties in
this action has no tendency to make any relevant fact more or less
probable
than
it
would
be
without
mention
of
the
financial
disparity and is of no consequence in determining this action.
At
this juncture, the relevant question of fact before this Court is
whether the University had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason
for terminating Becknell’s employment or alternatively whether the
3
proffered
legitimate
reason
is
pretext
for
FMLA
retaliation.
Whether the University’s general fund contains one dollar, or one
hundred million dollars, is of no moment in determining whether
the University terminated Becknell based on her use of FMLA leave.
As such, any evidence of the University’s liability insurance
or the financial disparity between Becknell and the University is
excluded.
B.
Evidence of the Findings of the Kentucky Unemployment
Insurance Commission
Second,
findings
the
made
by
University
the
seeks
Kentucky
to
exclude
Unemployment
evidence
about
Commission.
In
response, Becknell claims that she does not intend to introduce
the findings of the Commission as substantive evidence but that
the parties’ sworn testimony and submissions to the Commission are
relevant and admissible for impeachment purposes to the extent
that Defendant’s testimony at trial is inconsistent with these
sworn statements.
Here,
while
the
findings
of
the
Kentucky
Unemployment
Insurance Commission are relevant under the Rule 401 standard, the
findings are excluded based on Rule 403.
Under Rule 403, “[t]he
court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially
outweighed
by
a
danger
of
one
or
more
of
the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury,
undue
delay,
wasting
time,
4
or
needlessly
presenting
cumulative evidence.”
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
In the present case,
the probative value of the findings of the Kentucky Unemployment
Insurance Commission is substantially outweighed by a danger of
unfair prejudice. If introduced, the jury may be tempted to simply
adopt the findings and conclusions of the Commission as its own
instead of making independent findings based on the evidence
submitted at trial.
As a result, evidence of the findings and
conclusions of the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission that
are related to the issues in this action is excluded.
Even so, that is not to say that testimony and submissions
provided to the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission are not
relevant for some other purpose, namely for impeachment. The Court
understands the University’s motion in limine to only request
exclusion of introduction of the findings of the Commission and
not exclusion of all documents and testimony provided to the
Commission.
In conclusion, Becknell may not introduce the findings of the
Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission as evidence in this
action.
Still, sworn statements and testimony provided to the
Commission may be admissible for another purpose pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
5
II.
Conclusion
Accordingly, having considered the University’s motion in
limine, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED as
follows:
(1)
The University of Kentucky’s motion in limine [DE 39] is
GRANTED;
(2)
Any
University’s
evidence,
liability
mention
insurance
of,
or
or
argument
appeals
to
the
about
the
financial
disparity between the parties is EXCLUDED; and
(3)
Any evidence, mention or, or argument about findings
made by the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission pertaining
to this dispute between the parties is EXCLUDED.
This the 23rd day of April, 2019.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?