Corley v. State Of Louisiana Through Division Of Administration, Office Of Risk Management
Filing
261
RULING denying 210 , 211 , 212 , 225 , 226 and granting 223 , 224 Motions in Limine.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/17/2011. (CMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IDELLA CORLEY
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION
STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT, ET
AL
NUMBER 06-882-SCR
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Before the court are nine Motions in Limine filed by the
defendants.
Plaintiff has filed oppositions to the motions, which
have all been considered.1
1.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Regarding Failure to Accommodate2
In this motion the defendants seek to exclude from the trial
any arguments or evidence that they allegedly failed to accommodate
the
plaintiff’s
anticipate
the
health
plaintiff
condition.
will
1
Defendants
testify
that
stated
they
they
failed
to
In her oppositions the plaintiff consistently referred
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Record
document number 216.
The court issued a Ruling on Motion for
Summary Judgment, record document number 208, since parties
consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). Plaintiff argued that the findings which resulted
in partially granting the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
were erroneous and contrary to law. Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, to the extent they could be considered
as a Rule 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., motion, were denied. Record document
number 260.
2
Record document number 210.
accommodate her medical condition in their assignment of her work
duties. Defendants argued that such evidence should be excluded on
the following grounds: (1) the plaintiff did not bring a claim
under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the evidence is
irrelevant to the plaintiff’s federal retaliation claims; and, (2)
the admission of this evidence may suggest to the jury that the
plaintiff is claiming a violation of the ADA, resulting in sympathy
for
the
plaintiff
and
unfair
prejudice
to
the
defendants.
Plaintiff has filed an opposition which the court has considered.3
After review of motion the court concludes that it cannot make
this determination prior to trial.
plaintiff’s
medical
Some evidence related to the
conditions/failure
to
accommodate
may
be
relevant as background information or provide context for evidence
related to the plaintiff’s protected activity.
The determination
of relevance and prejudice cannot be resolved until such time as
the plaintiff attempts to introduce some specific evidence on this
subject
at
trial.
If
and
when
the
plaintiff
does
so,
the
defendants may object, for the reasons stated in this motion and/or
other reasons, and a decision can be made based on the nature of
the evidence offered and the context and purpose for which it is
offered.
Accordingly, the ruling on the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to
Exclude Evidence Regarding Failure to Accommodate is denied.
3
Record document number 245.
2
2.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Regarding Lost Wages4
In this motion the defendants moved to exclude any arguments
or evidence that the plaintiff suffered lost wages as a result of
the
termination
of
her
employment.
Defendants
argued
that
exclusion of this evidence is appropriate because the plaintiff has
been disabled and unable to work since December 6, 2008. Plaintiff
also has not sought or obtained employment since her termination.
Therefore, defendants argued, she failed to mitigate her damages
and cannot recover any lost wages. Plaintiff opposed the motion in
part based on the argument that the issue of any lost wages is an
issue
for
the
court
to
decide.
Therefore,
the
issue
is
an
award
of
inappropriate for decision on a motion in limine.5
Plaintiff’s
argument
has
merit.
Unlike
compensatory damages, awards of equitable relief such as front and
back pay under Title VII are decided by the court.6
would
not
be
appropriate
to
decide
the
Therefore, it
issue
of
lost
wages/mitigation of damages prior to trial and before the jury
4
Record document number 211.
5
Record document number 246.
6
See, Gamboa v. Henderson, 240 F.3d 1074 (5th Cir.
2000)(unpublished), citing, Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151
F.3d 402, 423 n. 19 (5th Cir. 1998); see also, Black v. Pan
American Laboratories, L.L.C., 646 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir.
2011)(because back pay is equitable remedy, district court did not
have to empanel an advisory jury, but could decide the back pay
issue itself absent the parties’ agreement to the correct amount).
3
makes a determination on the issue of liability.7
Accordingly, the ruling on the defendants’ Motion in Limine to
Exclude Evidence Regarding Lost Wages suffered as a result of the
plaintiff’s termination is denied.
3.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Plaintiff’s Testimony Regarding the Cause of Her
Medical Condition8
Defendants
moved
to
exclude
the
plaintiff’s
testimony
regarding a causal connection between the alleged retaliatory
conduct and the psychological damages she claims she suffered as a
result of that conduct.
Defendants argued that the plaintiff’s
testimony on this subject is not admissible under Rule 701,
Fed.R.Evid., which prohibits a lay witness from offering opinions
or inferences that must be based on specialized knowledge under
Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid.
According to the defendants, testimony on
causation or a medical opinion must be based on specialized
knowledge introduced only through a qualified expert witness, not
through a lay witness. Since the plaintiff has not been designated
an expert and cannot qualify as an expert, her testimony is not
admissible based on the restrictions on lay opinion testimony under
Rule 701.
In support of their arguments the defendants relied on
7
At an appropriate time and outside the presence of the jury,
the court will set a time for hearing evidence and argument related
to these issues.
8
Record document number 212.
4
case law from other circuits and district courts.
Plaintiff filed
an opposition which the court has considered.9
Compensatory damages for emotional distress and other tangible
injuries are not presumed from the mere violation of constitutional
or statutory rights.
An award compensatory damages requires
specific, individualized evidence, including how the plaintiff was
personally affected by the discriminatory conduct and the nature
and extent of the harm.
While a plaintiff’s testimony alone may
not be sufficient to support anything more than a nominal damage
award, the Fifth Circuit has not held that medical evidence or
corroborating testimony is required for an award of mental anguish
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). Therefore, the testimony of
a plaintiff alone can support an award for emotional damages.
Migis, supra; Oden v. Oktibbeha County, Miss., 246 F.3d 458, 470-71
(5th Cir. 2001); Patterson v. P.H.P. Healthcare Corp., 90 F.3d 927
(5th Cir. 1996); DeCorte v. Jordan, 497 F.3d 433, 442 (5th Cir.
2007); Williams v. Trader Pub. Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 (Cir. 5th
2000).
These
cases
make
it
clear
that
lay
testimony
from
the
plaintiff can support an award of psychological damages resulting
from
discriminatory
or
retaliatory
conduct.
Based
on
the
controlling jurisprudence in the Fifth Circuit, the defendants’
Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony Regarding the
9
Record document number 247.
5
Cause of Her Medical Conditions is denied.
4.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Lay Witnesses Testimony Regarding Causation of
Plaintiff’s Psychological Damages10
Defendants
also
filed
a
similar
motion
to
exclude
the
testimony of other lay witnesses regarding the cause of the
plaintiff’s
psychological
injury
and
damages.
Defendants
essentially cited the same arguments and case law they relied on to
support their motion in limine related to the plaintiff’s testimony
on her psychological damages. Plaintiff filed an opposition urging
the same arguments she made to oppose the previous motion.11
Essentially for the reasons explained in connection with the motion
in limine to exclude the plaintiff’s testimony, this motion must
also be denied.12
Defendants also argued that any testimony from other lay
witnesses should be excluded because it is inherently unreliable,
speculative and not based on first hand knowledge.
is
unpersuasive
as
basis
for
ruling
10
a
motion
in
limine.
Record document number 214.
11
on
This argument
Record document number 249.
12
The cases in the Fifth Circuit show that corroborating
testimony to support the plaintiff’s testimony of her mental
anguish damages can come from lay witnesses such as a co-worker,
parent or spouse. See, Giles v. General Elec. Co., 245 F.3d 474,
488 (5th Cir. 2001); Salinas v. O’Neill, 286 F.3d 827, 832 (5th
Cir. 2002); Denner v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 2006 WL
2987719 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2006).
6
Defendants can raise these objections at trial if they believe any
witness’s testimony is speculative, unreliable or not based on
first-hand knowledge.
Accordingly, the defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Lay
Witnesses
Testimony
Regarding
Causation
of
Plaintiff’s
Psychological Damages is denied.
5.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Workers’
Compensation Claims13
Defendants anticipate the plaintiff will present evidence or
argument regarding her workers’ compensation claims and argued that
such
evidence
would
be
irrelevant
and
unduly
prejudicial.
Defendants noted that the plaintiff has no longer has a retaliation
or other claim associated with her workers’ compensation claim.
Therefore, any evidence related to this subject is not relevant and
would
prejudice
plaintiff.
the
defendants
by
creating
sympathy
for
the
Plaintiff filed an opposition which the court has
considered.14
Although the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation retaliation
claim was dismissed on summary judgment, it is possible that
evidence related to the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claims
could be relevant to the plaintiff’s remaining retaliation claim
13
Record document number 213.
14
Record document number 248.
7
and/or the issue of damages.
The better course is to deny the
motion, leaving to the defendant to object when the plaintiff
attempts to introduce some specific evidence on this subject at the
trial.
Accordingly, the ruling on the defendants’ Motion in Limine to
Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Workers’ Compensation Claims
is denied.
6.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Testimony of Angele Davis, Jerry Luke LeBlanc,
Jean Vandal, and Whitman J. Kling15
Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of Angele Davis,
Jerry Luke LeBlanc, Jean Vandal, and Whitman J. Kling on the ground
that they have no personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s remaining
retaliation claim.
employed
with
the
Defendants noted that Kling and Davis were not
DOA
when
the
employment
actions
at
issue
occurred, and neither LeBlanc or Vandal were personally involved in
the employment decisions underlying the retaliation claim.
Although LeBlanc, Vandal and Davis, were the Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioners during the period of time the plaintiff was
employed with the ORM, the plaintiff has not shown either in the
description of their expected testimony or in her response to this
15
Record document number 223.
8
motion,16 that these DOA officials were decisionmakers or had any
other personal involvement in the employment actions that are the
basis of the plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
Kling was no longer
the appointing authority for the DOA as of March 2005. However, as
to Kling, the plaintiff has shown that he has information about the
grievance process that may be relevant to the retaliation claim.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony
of Angele Davis, Jerry Luke LeBlanc, Jean Vandal, and Whitman J.
Kling is granted as to Davis, LeBlanc and Vandal and the motion is
denied as Kling.
7.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence of Alleged Discrimination17
Defendants’ moved to exclude the testimony of six witnesses to
the extent the plaintiff intends to call them to testify about
their
own
claims
of
discrimination
and
observations
of
discrimination in the DOA, and their discussions with the plaintiff
16
Record document number 250. Plaintiff gave an identical
description of the testimony of the four witnesses: “To testify to
claims asserted by the parties in this instant suit, policies,
procedures, and practices of the Division of Administration and
discriminatory practices.” Record document number 221. Plaintiff
also gave this same description regarding the testimony of eight
other witnesses, four of which are defendants: Goodson, Graham,
Thompson, Reed, Cardona, McCallum, Batiste, and Toney.
17
Record document number 224.
9
regarding discrimination against blacks in the ORM.18
Defendants
essentially argued that this proposed testimony is irrelevant
because
the
harassment
plaintiff’s
have
been
claims
dismissed,
for
race
and
any
discrimination
testimony
of
and
these
witnesses on those subjects is not relevant to the plaintiff’s
retaliation claim.
Defendants also argued that even if the
testimony is relevant, admission of this evidence would be unduly
prejudicial because the evidence would confuse the jury by creating
mini-trials, and mislead the jury into believing that the plaintiff
has a discrimination claim, which in fact has been dismissed.
Plaintiff filed an opposition which the court has considered.19
Plaintiff relied on her objections to the Ruling on Motion for
Summary Judgment, essentially arguing that the evidence from these
witnesses should not be excluded because it was error for the court
to dismiss her claims for racial discrimination and harassment.
Plaintiff did not explain how any testimony from these witnesses
about their own discrimination claims, their observations of what
they
perceived
to
be
discrimination
18
in
the
DOA,
and
their
The witnesses are Janet Chriss, Naomi Sandres, Albert
Jenkins, Bynie Wells, Janet London and Elfreda Russell. Of these
six witnesses, London and Russell are the two who will testify as
to discussions with the plaintiff about discriminatory treatment of
blacks in the ORM.
Plaintiff also indicated that some of the
witnesses (Chriss, Sandres, Jenkins and Wells) would testify about
the effects of the defendants’ conduct on the plaintiff.
This
motion does not seek to exclude that aspect of their testimony.
19
Record document number 251.
10
discussions with the plaintiff regarding what they believed to be
discrimination against blacks in the ORM, could be relevant to her
retaliation claim.
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence of Alleged Discrimination from witnesses Janet Chriss,
Naomi Sandres, Albert Jenkins, Bynie Wells, Janet London and
Elfreda Russell is granted.
8.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Testimony Regarding Plaintiff’s Employment
With Employers Other Than ORM20
Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of eight witnesses
listed to testify about the plaintiff’s job performance and conduct
at other state agencies where she worked prior to her being hired
by the ORM.21
Defendants argued that this type of testimony is not
relevant to the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, and these witnesses
have no personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s claim for retaliation
while she was employed by the ORM.
Plaintiff opposed the motion.22
Plaintiff argued that: (1) it
would be unfair to allow the defendants to present evidence to
support their argument that the plaintiff was insubordinate and
20
Record document number 225.
21
The witnesses are Ward S. Filgo, Angela S. Howard, Linda B.
Lambert, Everette C. Roberts Jr., Cheryl A. Jones, Jennifer
Guillory, Tammy M. Bridges, and Pearlie J. Johnson.
22
Record document number 252.
11
unable to get along with supervisors and co-workers, but not allow
her to present evidence from her former supervisors and co-workers
to rebut this evidence; and, (2) the testimony of these witnesses
is relevant because other evidence shows that her entire employment
history was considered in connection with filling of the Executive
Staff
Officer
determining
position,
what
and
disciplinary
should
action
have
to
been
take.
considered
in
Plaintiff’s
explanation of the relevance of this evidence is persuasive.
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Testimony Regarding Plaintiff’s Employment with Employers other
Than ORM is denied.
9.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits23
In this motion the defendants seek to exclude from being
introduced at trial approximately 260 exhibits listed by the
plaintiff.
Plaintiff opposed the motion.24
Although the plaintiff listed hundreds of exhibits, it is not
clear that she will actually offer all of them in evidence.
The
better course is to determine whether the exhibit is admissible if
and when the plaintiff attempts to offer it into evidence during
the trial.
23
Record document number 226.
24
Record document number 253.
12
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits is denied.
Summary
In summary, the Defendants’ Motion in Limine filed at record
document numbers 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 225 and 226 are denied;
Defendants’ Motion in Limine filed at record document number 224 is
granted; Defendants’ Motion in Limine filed at record document
number 223 is granted as to LeBlanc, Davis and Vandal and is denied
as to Kling.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 17, 2011.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
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?