Evans v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 80

OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motions in Limine 60 61 to the extent specified in this Order. This Order is issued to memorialize the record of the conference held with the parties prior to trial on 3/13/2012. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 3/21/2012. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR NEIL EVANS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

NO. 1:09-CV-00791

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions in
Limine (docs. 60, 61) and Defendant’s Responses in Opposition
(docs. 65, 66).

The Court discussed these motions with the

parties in conference prior to trial.

So as to ensure a complete

record, the Court issues the instant Order, memorializing its GRANT
of such motions to the extent indicated herein.
As an initial matter, the Court appreciates the parties
having briefed these matters prior to trial, as such briefing
assisted

the

Court

in

ruling

on

the

questions

presented.

Plaintiff’s first motion requested the Court to exclude evidence of
his prior work record, discipline, and work history (doc. 61).
Defendant opposed such motion, indicating in its view that if it
were barred from presenting such evidence, the jury could be misled
into believing Plaintiff had an unblemished record for the length
of his twenty-two year long employment (doc. 65).

The Court found

it in the interests of justice to grant Plaintiff’s motion as his

prior work history would be prejudicial to Plaintiff, it was
irrelevant, and it would risk to confuse the jury.

Fed. R. Evid.

401. However, the Court also found Defendant’s position well-taken
regarding a potential inference that could arise in the jury’s view
with regard to the length of Plaintiff’s employment.

As such the

Court indicated to the parties that should Plaintiff enter into
evidence the length of his employment, he would also open the door
to the admission of his prior work record, discipline, and accident
history.
In Plaintiff’s second motion he requested the Court
exclude evidence and argument with respect to the Ohio Panel
Decision (doc. 60).

Plaintiff also sought to exclude any evidence

of

from

determinations

Commission

and

the

Ohio

the

Equal

Civil

Employment

Rights

Commission

Opportunities
(Id.).

In

Plaintiff’s view the decisions and proceedings involved different
legal standards, reviewed different evidence and did not consider
whether Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for taking FMLA
leave (Id.).

Defendant opposed such motion as in its view the

decision was relevant evidence showing the legitimacy of its
termination decision (doc. 66). The Court found highly instructive
the decision in Mitchell v. County of Wayne, Case No. 05-73698,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18549, *14-15 (E.D. Mich. March 16, 2007), in
which the court was similarly confronted with a liminal motion in
a FMLA action, where a plaintiff sought to exclude evidence of his

-2-

grievance and arbitration proceedings and decision on the same
basis as Plaintiff here. The Mitchell court found the arbitrator’s
decision

involved

construction

of

the

collective

bargaining

agreement, which had “no bearing on Plaintiff’s rights under the
FMLA.”

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18549 at *15.

The Court further

noted, “[m]ore significantly. . . the arbitrator’s decision is not
to be substituted for the decision making authority of the jury. .
.which involves issues separate and different from those in the
grievance procedure.”

Id.

As such, the Court instructed the

Defendant that it would be barred from introducing any evidence of
the result of Plaintiff’s grievance proceeding, that it could only
make oblique reference to such proceeding, but that any statements
Plaintiff may have made during any proceeding could be relevant and
admissible.

Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motions in
Limine (docs. 60, 61) to the extent indicated herein.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2012

/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

-3-