Lantz v. Gilligan's Bar & Grill, Inc.

Filing 63

ORDER denying Lantz's motion in limine 40 to exclude evidence that Lantz did not properly report sexual harassment to G. Lois. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 08/18/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KIMBERLY S. LANTZ,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
GILLIGAN’S BAR & GRILL, INC., :
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-885
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2011, upon consideration of the motion
in limine (Doc. 40) filed by plaintiff Kimberly S. Lantz (“Lantz”), wherein Lantz
requests that the court exclude evidence that Lantz did not directly report sexual
harassment to George Lois,1 and upon further consideration of the brief in
opposition (Doc. 49) to Lantz’s motion, filed by defendant Gilligan’s Bar & Grill, Inc.
(“Gilligan’s”), wherein Gilligan’s argues that Lantz’s motion should be denied,2 and
the court concluding that Lantz’s conduct in reporting (or failing to report) sexual

1

Lantz contends that the fact that she did not directly report sexual
harassment to George Lois, the owner of Gilligan’s, is not relevant. Lantz argues in
the alternative that the probative value of evidence on this subject is substantially
outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading
the jury. (Docs. 40-41 at 4).
2

Gilligan’s insists that evidence that Lantz failed to report harassment to
George Lois is relevant with respect to the following issues “the credibility of
[Lantz’s] allegations, the nature of the harassment allegedly suffered by [Lantz], the
severity and pervasiveness of the harassment, and any emotional distress caused by
the alleged conduct.” (Doc. 49 at 5). Gilligan’s also argues that, if any prejudice to
Lantz would result from the admission of the evidence at issue, such prejudice
would not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value. (Id.)

harassment is relevant, and that its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair
prejudice or confusing or misleading the jury, it is hereby ORDERED that Lantz’s
motion in limine (Doc. 40) is DENIED.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge