Pritchard-Sleath v. Sorrell et al

Filing 102

ORDER re: admissibility of survey conducted by CMS. Signed by Chief Judge Dana L. Christensen on 8/22/2014. (dle)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
ELIZABETH PRITCHARD-SLEATH,

CV 12–74–H–DLC

Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Defendant.

Before the Court are the parties briefs regarding the admissibility of the
survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) on
the Montana Developmental Center as it pertains to Plaintiff Elizabeth PritchardSleath. Plaintiff argues that only evidence concerning the reasons for termination
that were outlined in the May 16, 2011 and May 27, 2011 letters (“termination
letters”)1 are admissible, while evidence relating to any clients not mentioned in
those letters is inadmissible. Defendant argues that everything related to
Plaintiff’s conduct mentioned in the CMS survey was communicated to her as part
1

The May 27, 2011 termination letter references the May 16, 2011 due
process letter, so the conduct listed in both letters is relevant to Plaintiff’s
termination.
1

of her progressive discipline and are admissible, while the results of the CMS
survey regarding funding should be admitted as evidence rebutting Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim. The Court will allow evidence from the CMS survey that is
either specifically mentioned in the termination letters or is offered to substantiate
the reasons set forth therein. The potential funding consequences of the CMS
survey are admissible as evidence of Defendant’s motivation for Plaintiff’s
termination in rebuttal of the retaliation claim.
Reasons for discharge that are not stated in a discharge letter are generally
irrelevant and inadmissible. McConkey v. Flathead Electric Co-op, 125 P.3d
1121, 1127 (Mont. 2005). However, “evidence offered to substantiate the reasons
already given in the termination letter are admissible.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted).
The termination letters provide very specific reasons for Plaintiff’s
termination in reference to the following MDC clients: #1945, 1797, 1922, 1953,
and 1969. Evidence relating to Plaintiff’s conduct regarding only these clients
will be admissible. Any evidence pertaining to other clients not mentioned in the
termination letters, or evidence of other misconduct by the Plaintiff, is
inadmissible because it is irrelevant and does not help explain the specific reasons
provided for Plaintiff’s discharge.
2

Although the potential loss of federal funding due to the CMS survey results
was not listed in the termination letters as a reason for discharge, this evidence is
admissible to rebut Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because it provides a different
motivation for Plaintiff’s termination rather than her report to Disability Rights
Montana. See Johnson v. Costco, 152 P.2d 727, 734-735 (Mont. 2007); Foster v.
Albertsons, Inc., 835 P.2d 720, 727 (Mont. 1992). Plaintiff has made relevant the
Defendant’s motivation for firing her in her retaliation claim, so Defendant can
introduce evidence regarding its motivation, including that it could have lost its
federal funding if it did not comply with the CMS survey findings.
IT IS ORDERED that evidence regarding Plaintiff’s conduct is admissible
only if it was stated in the May 16, 2011 or May 27, 2011 termination letters.
Evidence of the CMS survey results is admissible only for conduct that was
outlined in the termination letters regarding clients #1945, 1797, 1922, 1953, and
1969: evidence regarding all other clients in the CMS survey shall be stricken.
The potential loss of federal funding is admissible because it is relevant to
Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
Dated this 22nd day of August, 2014.

3