Gaiser v. America's Floor Source

Filing 67

OPINION AND ORDER denying 50 Defendants First Motion in Limine; denies as moot 51 Defendants Second Motion in Limine; granting 54 Plaintiff's First Motion in Limine and granting 55 Plaintiff's Second Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 11/17/2021. (cmw)

Case: 2:18-cv-01071-EAS-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1149

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GAISER,

Case No. 2:18-cv-1071
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICA’S FLOOR SOURCE,
Defendant.

MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s First Motion in Limine, (ECF No. 50,
hereinafter “Def’s Mot. I”), Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine (ECF No. 51, hereinafter “Def’s
Mot. II”), Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 54, hereinafter “Pl.’s Mot. I”), and Plaintiff’s
Second Motion in Limine (ECF No. 55, hereinafter “Pl.’s Mot. II”). The parties have filed
responses to each of the motions (ECF Nos. 56, 57, 59, 60) and the motions are ripe for decision.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 50),
DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine (ECF No. 51), and GRANTS
Plaintiff’s First and Second Motions in Limine (ECF Nos. 54, 55).
I.
This matter arises out of Defendant America’s Floor Source’s (AFS) termination of
Plaintiff Stephanie Gaiser on February 8, 2018. Ms. Gaiser claims AFS fired her in retaliation for
her FMLA leave. AFS claims it decided to fire Ms. Gaiser before she took FMLA leave, and that
it fired her because she did not learn the necessary skills to assume an installation manager position
for which she was hired. (Gasier Dep. Ex. H; Hoffer Dep. 125:10–12; Oste Dep. 31:19–24.)

Case: 2:18-cv-01071-EAS-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 1150

Plaintiff filed this suit on September 17, 2018 alleging FMLA retaliation and FMLA
interference under 29 U.S.C. § 2617. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On January 27, 2020, this Court granted
summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim and denied summary
judgment on Plaintiffs FMLA retaliation claim. (See Op. & Order, ECF No. 23.) This case
proceeds to trial on Plaintiff’s FMLA retaliation claim.
II.
Neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly
authorize a court to rule on an evidentiary motion in limine. The United States Supreme Court has
noted, however, that the practice of ruling on such motions “has developed pursuant to the district
court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.
4 (1984). The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow a court to rule on issues pertaining to
evidence in advance of trial in order to avoid delay and ensure an evenhanded and expeditious
trial. See Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (citing
Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir.1997)). Notwithstanding
this well-meaning purpose, courts are generally reluctant to grant broad exclusions of evidence in
limine, because “a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value
and utility of evidence.” Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 2 F. Supp.2d 1385, 1388 (D. Kan. 1998); accord
Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975).
Evidentiary rulings are made subject to the district court’s sound discretion. Frye v. CSX
Trans., Inc., 933 F.3d 591, 598 (6th Cir. 2019). To obtain the exclusion of evidence under such a
motion, a party must prove that the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See
Ind. Ins. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d at 846; Koch, 2 F.Supp.2d at 1388; cf. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. “Unless
evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that

2

Case: 2:18-cv-01071-EAS-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 1151

questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”
Ind. Ins. Co., 326 F. Supp.2d at 846.
III.
The Court examines the parties’ motions in limine in the order they were filed. First,
Defendant moves to exclude evidence of lost wages or benefits for Plaintiff arising after she
allegedly ceased looking for employment. (Def.’s Mot. I.) Second, Defendant moves to exclude
Plaintiff’s Exhibits H and I—pictures of Plaintiff’s leg in a cast. (Def.’s Mot. II.) Third, Plaintiff
moves to exclude evidence of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff’s boyfriend in the Franklin County Court
of Common Pleas. (Pl.’s Mot. I.) Fourth, Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of her claim for
unemployment benefits with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). (Pl.’s
Mot. II.)
A. Defendant’s First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 50): Plaintiff’s Lost Wages and Benefits
After April 2019
Defendant first moves to exclude any arguments or evidence for alleged lost wages or
benefits arising after April 2019 because Plaintiff allegedly ceased looking for alternative
employment at that time and therefore stopped her mitigation efforts. (Def.’s Mot. I at 3.) In
support of its motion, Defendant points to Plaintiff’s deposition testimony from May 2019: “So I
have a second job that I started in April, which is REI. It’s a retailer, so I work there part-time. So
currently between the two I’m currently not looking for employment.” (Gaiser Dep. at 13–14.)
Plaintiff responds that she did not stop looking for employment and mitigating her losses
after April 2019 because she was speaking with her part-time employers about moving to a fulltime managing position. (Id. 12:22–24, 14:1–3, 18:16–19; Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. I at 1–2, ECF
No. 59.) The record supports Plaintiff’s contention that she did not stop her mitigation efforts after
April 2019 because she worked part-time and sought full-time employment after April 2019. (Id.
3

Case: 2:18-cv-01071-EAS-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 1152

at 18–19.) The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s First Motion to exclude evidence of lost
wages or benefits after April 2019.
B. Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine (ECF No. 51): Plaintiff’s Exhibits H, I
Defendant AFS moves to exclude Plaintiff’s proposed Exhibits H and I and any arguments
or evidence relating to the two exhibits. (Def.’s Mot II at 1.) Exhibits H and I are pictures of
Plaintiff’s leg in a cast after her surgery. (See Pl.’s Exhibit List, ECF No. 45.) Defendant argues
that the photos should be excluded because they are offered to show the reason Plaintiff took
FMLA leave, but the parties do not dispute that her FMLA leave was valid. Defendant argues that
the photos are only offered to garner compassion with the jury and are therefore prejudicial to
Defendant. (Def.’s Mot II at 3.)
Plaintiff responds that Exhibit H and I are unnecessary if her reason for taking FMLA leave
is undisputed. Plaintiff agrees to not admit or display the exhibits at trial. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s
Mot. II at 1, ECF No. 60.) The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion (ECF
No. 50) to exclude evidence of or arguments relating to Plaintiff’s Exhibits H and I.
C. Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 54): Wasserman Lawsuit
Plaintiff moves to exclude any mention of the lawsuit, Wasserman v. The Nash Group Inc.
et. al., Case No. 17-CV-010532, which was filed by her boyfriend in the Franklin County Court
of Common Pleas. (Pl.’s Mot. I at 1.) In that case, Plaintiff’s boyfriend sued his former employer
for breach of contract, age discrimination, and conversion. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff argues that any
evidence of the case irrelevant and prejudicial against Plaintiff because the case is unrelated and
will only be used to improperly suggest that Plaintiff is litigious because of her association with
someone else who filed a lawsuit. (Id.)

4

Case: 2:18-cv-01071-EAS-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 1153

Defendant argues that this evidence is relevant because it “shows Plaintiff sought medical
insurance with Defendant due to Wasserman’s discharge at issue in the Wasserman Lawsuit.”
Plaintiff allegedly sought medical insurance through AFS at the same time she sought medical
insurance coverage from her boyfriend’s employer, The Nash Group. (Id. at 2.) Defendant also
notes that “Plaintiff discussed the Wasserman Lawsuit with co-workers and management at AFS
prior to her discharge” and “the timing of the Wassermann Lawsuit and Plaintiff’s employment
history with AFS is closely aligned.” (Def.’s Resp. to Pl’s Mot. I at 3, ECF No. 57.) For those
reasons, and the fact that additional evidence at trial will show “how closely aligned the facts truly
are between this lawsuit and the Wasserman Lawsuit,” Defendant requests that the Court defer
ruling on this motion until trial. (Id.)
The Court does not believe additional context is necessary to decide this issue. Based on
the evidence in the record, the Wasserman Lawsuit is not relevant to whether Defendant retaliated
against Plaintiff for taking FMLA leave; it is a separate and unrelated lawsuit. Defendant’s
arguments for relevance—that the lawsuit shows why Plaintiff sought medical insurance from
Defendant, and that Plaintiff discussed the lawsuit with co-workers—do not make a material fact
of consequence in this case more or less likely. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. There is no issue of
fact as to whether or why Plaintiff sought medical insurance from AFS, her employer.
Furthermore, the simple fact that Plaintiff discussed the lawsuit with AFS coworkers does not
make the subject relevant at trial. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to exclude
evidence or arguments concerning the Wasserman v. The Nash Group Inc. et. al. lawsuit, including
Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 27, absent an alternative basis for relevance.

5

Case: 2:18-cv-01071-EAS-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 1154

D. Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine (ECF No. 55): ODJFS Unemployment Benefits
Plaintiff also moves to exclude any evidence of her claim or appeal for unemployment
benefits with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). Because unemployment
benefits are not considered by a jury in determining damages, Plaintiff argues that evidence of her
claim or appeal for unemployment benefits is irrelevant to her FMLA retaliation claim and would
prejudice the jury against her by influencing their decision on the amount of damages to which she
is entitled. (Pl.’s Mot. II at 1, 4–5.)
Defendant claims it will not argue that unemployment benefits should be considered in
determining Plaintiff’s mitigation. (Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. II at 4, ECF No. 56.) Instead,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff put her unemployment claim at issue because Plaintiff’s Exhibit M
allegedly references the claim. (See Pl.’s Amended Exhibit List at 2, ECF No. 52.) Defendant
argues that it should be allowed to explain Plaintiff’s ODJFS claim for unemployment benefits
because “the claim required Plaintiff to seek employment, [and] the jury will unfairly believe that
Plaintiff continued her job search after March 2018 due to a desire to find alternative employment,
not to continue receiving ODJFS benefits.” (Id.) In other words, Defendant believes that if the jury
hears evidence of Plaintiff’s unemployment claim, it should be allowed to present evidence that
Plaintiff only sought employment after she was fired from AFS because it was a requirement to
receive unemployment benefits.
After Defendant filed its response to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, Plaintiff filed a redacted
copy of Exhibit M that does not contain references to her unemployment claim to address
Defendant’s concerns. Because Exhibit M’s references to the unemployment claim are now
redacted, and Court finds her unemployment claim and appeal are irrelevant to her FMLA
retaliation claim and potentially prejudicial to the jury, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to

6

Case: 2:18-cv-01071-EAS-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 1155

exclude evidence of her ODJFS unemployment benefits, claim, or appeal, absent an alternative
basis for relevance.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court, in accordance with this Opinion and Order, DENIES
Defendant’s First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 50), DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Second
Motion in Limine (ECF No. 51), and GRANTS Plaintiff’s First and Second Motions in Limine
(ECF Nos. 54, 55). As with all in limine decisions, this ruling is subject to modification should the
facts or circumstances at trial differ from that which has been presented in the pre-trial motion and
memoranda. The Court reminds the parties that the rulings made in this opinion bind the parties
unless either party seeks and obtains a different holding from the Court should the course of the
trial compel a reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/17/2021
DATE

s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7