Fairchild v. All American Check Cashing, Inc.

Filing 172

ORDER granting Defendant's [158, 160] Motions in Limine to Exclude reference to and evidence of the lawsuits filed by Jessica Lyn Welch and Briana Fulton Johnson. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 4, 2014 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
AMBREA FAIRCHILD
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-92-KS-MTP

ALL-AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INC.

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons provided below, the Court grants Defendant’s Motions in
Limine to Exclude [158, 160] reference to and evidence of the lawsuits filed by Jessica
Lyn Welch1 and Briana Fulton Johnson.2
Jessica Welch and Briana Johnson are former employees of Defendant. Welch
was the manager of Defendant’s branch in Slidell, Louisiana. Johnson was the
manager of Defendant’s branch in Wiggins, Mississippi. Their area supervisor was
Nathan Williams. Both were pregnant. Both were fired within several weeks of one
another. Both have filed lawsuits against Defendant for pregnancy discrimination.
Defendant argues that evidence of their lawsuits is not probative of Plaintiff’s
pregnancy discrimination claim. In response, Plaintiff contends that evidence of the
other lawsuits is admissible as evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination.
As the Court previously discussed [171], a Title VII plaintiff may be able to carry

1

See Complaint, Welch v. All American Check Cashing, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-271TSL-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 7, 2013), ECF No. 1.
2

See Complaint, Johnson v. All American Check Cashing, Inc., No. 3:13-CV270-WHB-RHW (S.D. Miss. May 7, 2013), ECF No. 1.

her burden by proving the existence of a “pattern or practice” of discrimination by her
employer. Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 302-03 (5th Cir. 2000). “A
‘pattern or practice’ of discrimination does not consist of isolated or sporadic
discriminatory acts by the employer. Rather, . . . it must be established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the impermissible discrimination was the
company’s standard operating procedure – the regular rather than the unusual
practice.” Id. at 302.
Anecdotes about other employees cannot establish that discrimination
was a company’s standard operating procedure unless those employees
are similarly situated to the plaintiff. This court and others have held
that testimony from former employees who had different supervisors than
the plaintiff, who worked in different parts of the employer’s company, or
whose terminations were removed in time from the plaintiff’s termination
cannot be probative of whether [an impermissible factor] was a
determinative factor in the plaintiff’s discharge.
Id. “The question of whether evidence of discrimination by other supervisors is relevant
in an individual [discrimination] case is fact based and depends on many factors,
including how closely related the evidence is to plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of
the case.” Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 388, 128 S. Ct. 1140,
170 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2008).
Here, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Jessica
Welch and Briana Johnson were similarly situated to her. Plaintiff worked in
Defendant’s Hattiesburg branch, while Welch and Johnson worked in Wiggins and
Slidell. Plaintiff was fired by her area supervisor, Mark Hendricks. Welch and Johnson
were fired by their area supervisor, Nathan Williams. Although Plaintiff alleges that
2

Defendant’s President, Michael Gray, approved all three terminations, she has not
cited any evidence demonstrating that he was the actual decision maker. Likewise, she
has not cited any evidence connecting Plaintiff’s termination to the terminations of
Welch and Johnson, beyond temporal proximity and the fact that all three women were
pregnant. Furthermore, Defendant has alleged different justifications for the three
terminations.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that evidence
of the lawsuits filed by Jessica Welch and Briana Johnson is probative of her
discrimination claim. See Wyvill, 212 F.3d at 302; Hardy v. Shell Chem. Co., 693 F.
Supp. 2d 611, 622-23 (E.D. La. 2010) (where plaintiff did not demonstrate that he was
similarly situated to other alleged victims of discrimination, anecdotal evidence was
not probative of his claims); Jackson v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr., 172
F. Supp. 2d 860, 878-79 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (where plaintiff worked in different
department than another alleged victim of discrimination, anecdotal evidence of that
other victim was not probative of discrimination against plaintiff). The Court grants
Defendant’s Motions in Limine to Exclude [158, 160] argument, reference, or evidence
of those lawsuits.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 4th day of December, 2014.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3