Thomas v. Hill

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM RULING re 18 MOTION in Limine filed by Allan Thomas. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/29/14. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

ALLAN THOMAS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2326

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

FRED HILL, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

RULING
Pending before the Court is a Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 18] filed by Plaintiff Allan
Thomas (“Thomas”) in the above-referenced matter. This is an employment discrimination case
brought by Thomas against his former employer, Defendant Fred Hill, Jr. (“Hill”), who owns
Home Appliance Parts and Service, Skent-N-Dent Outlet, Hillco Overhead Doors and Hillco
Properties City of Monroe. Thomas alleges that Hill discharged him in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Louisiana
Employment Discrimination Law (“LEDL”), La. Rev. Stat. 23:303, et seq.
Trial is set in this matter for September 15, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. In discovery, Hill
produced a copy of Thomas’ post on the social media site Facebook, which Hill intends to offer
into evidence at trial. The following exchange on Facebook took place between Buddy Welch
and Thomas:
Mr. Welch:

Hey boy, you and Fred patch things up? If not you got something
else lined up? I hope you do, and you will. Hope you’re doin well
my friend.

Mr. Thomas: HELL NO! I,M SUING THE CRAP OUT OF HIM BUDDY! I
won’t ever go back to work for him. I actually just got back from a
shut down job in Monticello Miss. I guess I’m going to do that for

a while until something I like with good money comes up. Or until
my lawsuit is finalized and then at that point I’ll either own home
appliance or retire. My lawyer said Fred is going to “SH*T” when
he gets the law suit and the 40K of unpaid over time was chump
change to the lawyers compared to the lawsuit amount so I’m
guessing this law suit is going to be in the $000k figures so we will see.
[Doc. No. 18-1, p. 2].
Thomas now moves the Court to exclude the Facebook post from evidence under Federal
Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, arguing that the post is not relevant and, even if relevant, its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, and the misleading of the jury.
Hill opposes the Motion in Limine. He argues that the post is relevant to show Thomas’
“hostility” towards Hill, “which resulted in his termination,” and “his retaliatory and pecuniary
motive for filing this lawsuit.” [Doc. No. 22, p. 2]. Hill argues that the post supports his reason
for terminating Thomas, shows his motive for filing the lawsuit, places Thomas’ credibility at
issue, and contains an admission against interest that Thomas is performing shut down work
when he was supposedly disabled.
Additionally, Hill argues that the relevance of the post is not substantially outweighed by
other considerations because this “hostile statement [was] made over four months after
[Thomas’] termination,” so it was not made in close enough proximity to be explained as an
angry reaction. [Doc. No. 22, p. 3]. Hill also argues that Thomas’ statement of the type of
damages he intended to seek is consistent with the damages calculation performed by his
attorney. Finally, Hill argues that the post provides him with proof of the non-discriminatory
reason for Thomas’ termination–Thomas’ “hostile [and] disrespectful behavior.” Id.

2

In a reply memorandum, Thomas responds that his comments were made after his
termination, and, thus, they are irrelevant to any alleged hostility toward Hill that predated his
termination. Rather, Thomas contends that his comments showed nothing more than the
displeasure that is common after someone is terminated. Thomas also argues that the post is not
relevant to show that he had a retaliatory and pecuniary motive for filing suit because all suits for
damages in the context of wrongful termination have at their core a pecuniary motive, and there
is not evidence of a retaliatory motive. Thomas also disputes that the Facebook post four months
after his termination has any relevance to whether he was disabled or perceived as disabled when
he was terminated or that the post somehow places his credibility at issue. Thomas has not
disputed that he could work after he was terminated, and the use of this Facebook post to argue
that he was not disabled would be misleading and confusing to the jury. Finally, Thomas
questions the logic of Hill’s argument that four months was too long for him to remain angry
about his termination when Hill allegedly terminated him for hostile and disrespectful behavior
occurring in February, 2011, seventeen months before the termination.
Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence.” FED . R. EVID . 401. Evidence that does not satisfy Fed. R. Evid. 401 is
inadmissible. FED . R. EVID . 402. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded 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, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.” FED . R. EVID . 403.
Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments of the parties, the Court finds
3

that Thomas’ Facebook post has only marginal relevance that is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and/or misleading the jury. Hill apparently
intends to argue at trial that he terminated Thomas, in part, for his hostile and disrespectful
attitude prior to August, 2012. However, Thomas’ hostility towards Hill months after his
termination does not make it more or less probably that Thomas was hostile to Hill before he
was terminated. Additionally, the Court finds that Thomas’ speculation as to the damages he
might be able to recover from Hill is completely irrelevant to these proceedings.
However, the Court finds that the Facebook post has some marginal relevance. Thomas
has raised two theories of recovery under the ADA and LEDL--that he was terminated because of
his actual disability and because he was regarded as disabled. To this extent, the fact that he was
working paper mill shut downs a few months after his termination has some marginal relevance
to his actual disability claim. Although the jury must make its determination of actual disability
at the time Thomas was terminated, it can be argued that the fact that he was back working
within a short time period after that date makes it less likely that he was disabled. Nevertheless,
the Court finds that, applying the balancing test of Rule 403, the Facebook post should be
excluded from evidence. The marginal relevance of the post is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and/or misleading the jury. It is clear that
Thomas has not and will not dispute at trial that he was working shut downs after his
termination, and Hill will have the opportunity to place this fact into evidence. If the post is
allowed into evidence, the obvious danger is that the jury may well be swayed by improper
considerations because of the angry nature of the post, rather than focus on its limited relevance.
Under these circumstances, Thomas’ Motion in Limine is GRANTED, and the Facebook
4

post is EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 29th day of August, 2014.

5