Garcia v. Algiers Charter Schools Association et al

Filing 111

ORDER AND REASONS re: 99 , 109 . The Court rules on defendant's objections as indicated herein. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 01/14/2019.(am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LINDSAY ARMOND GARCIA
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-8126

STANLEY GREEN, ET AL.

SECTION “R” (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Lindsay Armond Garcia pursues damages for intentional
infliction of emotional distress from defendant Stanley Green on the basis of
his behavior while she was his subordinate at the William J. Fisher School. 1
In anticipation of trial, Green has objected to several of Garcia’s exhibits.2
The Court rules on these objections as set forth below.

I.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS
A.

EEOC Charge of Discrimination

Green seeks to exclude Garcia’s Charge of Discrimination filed with the
EEOC as irrelevant to her IIED claim and substantially more prejudicial than

See R. Doc 1.
Garcia has not submitted any objections to the Court. She also did not
object to any of defendant’s exhibits in the pretrial order, except to object to
“impeachment evidence.” See R. Doc. 70 at 21. The Court thus considers her
to have waived any objections to Green’s exhibits. See R. Doc. 81 at 3
(“Objections that are not raised in the pretrial order will be considered
waived except for good cause shown.”).
1

2

probative under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.3 Garcia’s act of filing the
EEOC charge is relevant evidence on the issues of her severe emotional
distress and the lack of welcomeness of Green’s advances. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
While the charge is hearsay if introduced for the truth of the claims made in
it, it may be introduced as relevant evidence of Garcia’s attempts to report
Green’s behavior. Dunn v. Hunting Energy Servs., 288 F. Supp. 3d 749, 762
(S.D. Tex. 2017) (complaint may be introduced for the non-hearsay purpose
of proving that it was filed). The charge is not unduly prejudicial because
Garcia’s accusations against Green in the charge are no more prejudicial than
the evidence that will be elicited through Garcia’s testimony. In addition, the
Court can limit any prejudice by instructing the jury of the limited purpose
for which the charge may be used. The EEOC charge’s probative value as a
contemporaneous record of Garcia’s actions to report Green is not
substantially outweighed by its risk of prejudice under Rule 403, and it is
therefore admissible.
OVERRULED.

3

R. Doc. 99 at 2.
2

B.

Garcia’s Affidavit

For the reasons explained in the Court’s order on Green’s motion in
limine seeking to exclude the same affidavit, 4 Garcia’s affidavit is hearsay
and cannot be used to prove the truth of the matters asserted within it. But
Garcia may introduce the affidavit to prove that she complained about
Green’s behavior to ACSA, which is relevant to the severity of her emotional
distress. Dunn, 288 F. Supp. 3d at 762 (workplace complaint is not hearsay
when used to prove that it was filed). In addition, because the notebook from
which Garcia created the affidavit was not lost in bad faith, the loss of the
original notebook does not render the affidavit inadmissible under Federal
Rule of Evidence 1002. The affidavit is not a summary, so Rule 1006 does
not apply.
OVERRULED.
C.

Confidential Investigation Report and Supplemental Report

For the reasons explained in the Court’s order on defendant’s motion
in limine to exclude these reports,5 Tafaro’s reports are hearsay and are not
covered by any exception to Rule 802.
inadmissible.

4
5

See R. Doc. 109 at 5.
Id. at 6-9.
3

The reports are therefore

SUSTAINED.
D.

Green’s Hire Date

Green seeks to exclude ACSA’s record of Green’s hire date because it is
not relevant to Garcia’s claims.6 The date that Green was hired does not have
any bearing on his actions toward Garcia. The relevant dates for Garcia’s
claims would instead be the date that Green met Garcia, began working with
her, or began harassing her.

The Court therefore finds this exhibit

inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
SUSTAINED.
E.

Green’s Salary Change

Green’s salary is also irrelevant to Garcia’s claims against him. Garcia
makes no claims regarding Garcia’s pay or personal assets. His salary change
is therefore inadmissible under Rule 402.
SUSTAINED.
F.

Green’s Administrative Leaves, Disciplinary Action Charge,
and Termination

Green argues that ACSA documents putting him on administrative
leave, taking disciplinary action against him, and terminating his

6

R. Doc. 99 at 3.
4

employment are substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule
403. 7
ACSA’s decision to place Green on administrative leave, its decision to
fire him for violating its sexual harassment policies, and the findings of its
investigation are all probative of whether Green’s conduct was extreme and
outrageous.

Such evidence is thus admissible in the form of witness

testimony. But the exhibits to which Green objects do not include any factual
findings of Green’s conduct. The documents putting him on administrative
leave merely state that the leave is “with pay pending investigation,”8 and
“with pay until investigation is complete.” 9 The disciplinary action form
provides only that Green violated the school’s policies,10 and the termination
form shows that the termination was involuntary with no other details.11
None of the documents contains information about the nature of Green’s
conduct toward Garcia. Without facts about the underlying conduct, the
forms have little probative value for Garcia’s intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim. In addition, admission of these documents creates
a risk that the jury will construe ACSA’s decision to fire Green as

7
8
9
10
11

R. Doc. 99 at 3.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 12.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 13.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 14.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 15.
5

determinative of his guilt.

The documents are therefore excluded as

substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403.
SUSTAINED.
G.

Magendie’s Declaration

Green seeks to exclude Tansey Magendie’s declaration describing
ACSA’s sexual harassment policies and practices, as well as the steps she took
to investigate Garcia’s claims against Green, on the ground that it is
inadmissible hearsay.12 The declaration is indeed hearsay under Rule 802 if
used to prove the truth of the matters asserted within it. In addition, Garcia
intends to call Magendie as a witness, so the declaration is cumulative of her
testimony. The Court therefore finds the declaration inadmissible. Fed. R.
Evid. 403 (allowing courts to exclude relevant evidence when it is needlessly
cumulative).
SUSTAINED.
H.

Email from Magendie to Garcia

Green also seeks exclusion of email correspondence between Magendie
and Garcia as hearsay, irrelevant, and more prejudicial than probative. 13 In
most of the email messages, Garcia is expresses frustration with the school

12
13

Id. at 4.
Id.
6

administration rather than discussing Green directly. These emails are
substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403.

Their

probative value is slight because they do not relate directly to Green’s actions
or Garcia’s emotional distress caused by Green. They are prejudicial because
they confuse the issues in the case by introducing Garcia’s dissatisfaction
with the school district rather than Green himself. They are therefore
inadmissible.
But in one email, Garcia requests access to counseling services, which
is probative of her level of emotional distress. This email is not hearsay
because it is a statement of Garcia’s then-existing state of mind and
emotional condition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(3) (hearsay statements of “the
declarant’s then-existing state of mind . . . or emotional . . . condition” are
admissible). Because it speaks directly to Garcia’s emotional state and does
not make allegations against ACSA, this email is more probative than
prejudicial under Rule 403, and it is therefore admissible.
OVERRULED IN PART.
I.

Green’s Online Employment Application, Green’s New Hire,
Green’s Ethics History, Green’s Authorizations, Green’s Driver’s
License, Green’s Employee File, and Green’s LA State Police
Background Check

For the reasons explained in the Court’s order on Green’s motion in
limine to exclude his pre-employment documents, Green’s employment
7

application, ethics history, and authorizations are not admissible.14 Green’s
“new hire” form is the same document as his “hire date” form that the Court
already excluded as irrelevant.

The “employee file” consists of his

disciplinary action form that the Court already determined is inadmissible,
the two forms putting him on paid leave that the Court determined
inadmissible, and the EEOC charge that the Court determined admissible.
Green’s driver’s license is inadmissible because it is irrelevant under Rule
402.

His state background check is inadmissible because it is more

prejudicial than probative for the reasons explained in the Court’s motion in
limine granting Green’s motion to exclude his criminal convictions. 15
Accordingly, the Court sustains Green’s objection to these exhibits as either
duplicates of other exhibits, irrelevant, or as substantially more prejudicial
than probative.
SUSTAINED.
J.

Investigator’s Notes and Email to Re-Open Investigation

For the reasons explained in the Court’s order granting Green’s motion
in limine to exclude investigator Lauren Tafaro’s notes and email re-opening

14
15

R. Doc. 109 at 20-24.
Id. at 3-4.
8

her investigation, these documents are inadmissible because they are
hearsay under Rule 802 and are not covered by any exception to the Rule. 16
SUSTAINED.

II.

CONCLUSION
The Court rules on defendant’s objections as indicated above.

14th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of January, 2019.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

Id. at 6-9.
9