Filing 89


Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES CHIRDO, Plaintiff v. MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and, SPECIALTY MINERALS, INC., Defendants : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5523 MEMORANDUM S T E N G E L , J. A p r il 22, 2009 J a m e s Chirdo claims his employment was unlawfully terminated by defendants. He intends to introduce at trial a statement by the CEO of the defendant corporations, P a u l Saueracker, which shows an intent to discriminate on the basis of age. For the f o llo w in g reasons, I will deny defendants' motion to exclude Mr. Saueracker's statement. I . INTRODUCTION M r. Chirdo confronted Mr. Saueracker at the Hampton Inn in Bethlehem, P en n sylvan ia in early 2005. Mr. Chirdo asked Mr. Saueracker why older workers were b e in g "pushed out" of the company. Mr. Chirdo remembers Mr. Saueracker responding " w e are hiring younger people for new ideas." The defendants contend that this comment is inadmissible because it is a stray remark made by a non-decisionmaker, i.e., someone w h o did not participate in the decision, made several months later, to terminate Mr. 1 C h i rd o . Mr. Chirdo believes the statement is admissible evidence of the defendants' " c o r p o r a te culture" of discriminating against older employees. I I . DISCUSSION In an employment discrimination case, even a stray remark by a nond e c is io n m a k e r may be admissible. Walden v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 126 F.3d 506, 5202 1 (3d Cir. 1997) ("stray remarks" - even when made by individuals outside the decisionm a k in g process - may be admissible as evidence of discriminatory intent or corporate c u ltu re ). The Third Circuit has recognized an exception to the general rule that stray r e m a r k s are inadmissible for remarks that reflect "a cumulative managerial attitude." Ryder v. Westinghouse, 128 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the evidence of c o rp o ra te culture is not out-weighed by prejudice or the likelihood the jury will be c o n f u se d , it should be admitted. In this case, as in Ryder, the CEO made a statement regarding the value of younger e m p lo ye e s. The statement did not relate to Chirdo and was made by someone who did n o t participate in the decision to terminate him. Those facts do not render the statement ir re le v a n t. In Ryder, the Third Circuit found that comments "made by either the company C E O or by executives with authority to render personnel decisions . . . [and] in reflection o n past managerial viewpoints . . . with an eye toward future change" were admissible. 2 Id . at 133. The court explained that "[i]f the jury were to believe that these comments a c c u ra tely reflected a then existing managerial attitude toward older workers . . . this e v id e n c e would make the existence of an improper motive for [plaintiff's] termination m o re probable." Id. (citing F.R.E. 401; Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 72 F .3 d 326, 333-34 (3d Cir. 1995); Abrams v. Lightolier, Inc., 50 F.3d 1204, 1214-15 (3d C ir. 1995); Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F.2d 43, 54 (3d Cir.1989); W alde n , 126. F.3d at 520-21). M r. Saueracker's comment will be admitted. If the jury believes the statement was a c tu a lly made, it is relevant evidence of defendants' motive. I I I . CONCLUSION T h e defendants' request to exclude Mr. Saueracker's statement is denied. An a p p r o p r ia te Order follows. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?