Mascarini et al v. Quality Employment Services & Training et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part deft Weidman's motion in limine 68 . (See memo & order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 2/14/13. (ki)

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

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
QUALITY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES :
& TRAINING (a.k.a. QUEST, INC.),
:
PENELOPE SAMUELSON, JOSEPH :
KRISTOBAK, VERNA MORRIS,
:
HOLLIE MANWILLER, JOSEPH
:
HYLTON and MICHAEL WEIDMAN :
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-1546
(Judge Conner)

MEMORANDUM
This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Alice Mascarini alleging numerous
violations of federal and state law following the termination of her employment with
defendant Quality Employment Services and Training (a.k.a. Quest, Inc.).1
Presently before the court is a motion (Doc. 68) in limine filed by defendant Michael
Weidman. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the motion in part and
deny it in part.

1

Former plaintiffs Lourdes Costoso, Levi Rambler, Jenna Walters, and
Morgan Witman have settled their claims against the defendants. (See Doc. 49, at
1).

I.

Background
This case arises out of numerous incidents that occurred between 2007 and

2009 during plaintiff Alice Mascarini’s (“Mascarini”) employment at Quest.
Defendants are Quest, Inc. (“Quest”), a vocational rehabilitation facility that
provides employment training at sheltered workshops (Doc. 46 ¶ 4; Doc. 47 ¶ 4);
Penelope Samuelson, President or Vice President of the Board; Joseph Kristobak,
President of the Board;2 Verna Morris, Executive Director of Quest; Hollie
Manwiller, Interim Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer of Quest; Joseph
Hylton, Director of Vocational Services for Quest; and Michael Weidman
(“Weidman”), Maintenance Supervisor for Quest. (Doc. 46 ¶ 5; Doc. 47 ¶ 5).
Plaintiff originally instituted this action in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lebanon County. Weidman and the Quest defendants removed the matter to this
court on July 26, 2010. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff Mascarini filed an amended complaint
(Doc. 8) on August 27, 2010, alleging nine causes of action: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981;3 (2) violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; (3) violation of the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act;4 (4) violation of the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act (“PHRA”); (5) defamation;5 (6) assault; (7) intentional infliction of
2

In plaintiff’s pre-trial memorandum, she declares the withdrawal of all
claims against Penelope Samuelson and Joseph Kristobak. (See Doc. 76, at 7).
3

The parties have settled this claim.

4

The parties have settled this claim.

5

On November 21, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendants
on this claim. (Doc. 63).
2

emotional distress; (8) failure to supervise; and (9) wrongful discharge. (Doc. 8).
The only remaining claims against Weidman are for assault and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. (See Doc. 76, at 6).
During discovery, Mascarini inquired into several areas regarding
Weidman’s past personal relationships with co-workers as well as his personal
relationship with his former supervisor at Quest, Anne Vogt (“Ms. Vogt”). Weidman
wishes to preclude Mascarini from offering evidence in the following areas: (1)
evidence that Weidman had a personal relationship with co-worker Kay Zellers, aka
Kay O’Donnell (deceased); (2) evidence of Weidman’s relationship with co-worker
Theresa Torres and his support of their child; (3) evidence of whether Weidman
watches pornography; (4) evidence regarding the minor child of Ms. Vogt or the
custody of this child; (5) the testimony of Phillip Vogt (“Mr. Vogt”), Ms. Vogt’s exhusband. (Doc. 68, at 2). Weidman argues that this evidence is irrelevant and
overly prejudicial pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.
Mascarini avers that the contested evidence, other than Weidman’s
pornography viewing habits, is relevant to prove the existence of Weidman’s alleged
sexual relationship with Ms. Vogt that resulted in favoritism towards Weidman and
his retaliation against Mascarini when she reported this favoritism to Quest
officials. (Doc. 70, at 2-3). Weidman denies any affair with Ms. Vogt during the
course of Ms. Vogt’s employment at Quest. (Doc. 70, at 3). Mascarini opposes the
motion in limine to exclude evidence of Weidman’s prior relationship with two
former co-workers, except she agrees to limit trial evidence regarding Theresa
3

Torres to the fact that they had a child together. (Doc. 70, at 1). Mascarini agrees to
refrain from questioning Weidman about his pornography viewing habits. (Id.)
Mascarini agrees to restrict any evidence of Ms. Vogt’s minor child to Mr. Vogt’s use
of a child locating program on the child’s phone to locate Ms. Vogt at Mr.
Weidman’s home. (Id. at 2). Mascarini opposes the motion in limine to exclude the
testimony of Mr. Vogt. (Id.). The court shall address each issue in turn.
II.

Legal Standard
Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less

probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in
determining the action.” FED . R. EVID . 401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
FED . R. EVID . 402. The court may exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” FED . R. EVID . 403. The exclusion of
potentially relevant evidence pursuant to Rule 403 is an “extreme measure” at the
pre-trial stage and should rarely be excluded. Hines v. Consol. Rail Corp., 926 F.2d
262, 274 (3d Cir. 1991).
III.

Discussion
Evidence of Weidman’s prior relationships with co-workers is irrelevant and

overly prejudicial. Mascarini shall limit the presentation of evidence regarding Ms.
Vogt’s minor child to the fact that Mr. Vogt found Ms. Vogt at Weidman’s home

4

using a child locating program on the child’s phone. The court will allow the
testimony of Mr. Vogt.
A.

Weidman’s Prior Relationships with Co-Workers

The limited relevance of Weidman’s two prior relationships with co-workers
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Mascarini’s sole
justification for the introduction of this evidence is to help establish Weidman’s
affair with Ms. Vogt during the time in question by virtue of his habit of entering
into personal relationships with co-workers. (Doc. 70-1, at 2-3). Weidman’s
personal relationship with Kay Zellers occurred in 1995-1996, approximately 12
years before events relevant to this suit occurred. (Doc. 69, at 3). Weidman’s
personal relationship with Theresa Torres began in 2000, approximately 7 years
before events relevant to this suit occurred. (Doc. 70-3, Ex. B, at 44). Neither Kay
Zellers nor Theresa Torres were Weidman’s supervisor. The lack of temporal
proximity of these relationships, as well as the danger that such evidence will
prejudice the jury against Weidman, renders this evidence irrelevant and overly
prejudicial. The court will grant Weidman’s motion in limine on this ground. The
court notes, however, that Mascarini is free to explore any other independent,
relevant evidence of Weidman’s affair with Ms. Vogt during their employment at
Quest.
B.

Evidence of Affair with Ms. Vogt

Weidman seeks to exclude evidence regarding Ms. Vogt’s minor child as well
as the testimony of Mr. Vogt. Mascarini has agreed to limit evidence regarding Ms.
5

Vogt’s minor child to the fact that Mr. Vogt found Ms. Vogt at Weidman’s home,
while Ms. Vogt was Weidman’s supervisor at Quest, using a child locating program
on the child’s phone. (Doc. 70, at 2; Doc. 70-2, Ex. A, at 15-16). This evidence is
probative of the existence of the affair between Weidman and Ms. Vogt, which is
relevant to Mascarini’s claims. Mr. Vogt’s testimony is also probative of a sexual
relationship between Weidman and Ms. Vogt during their employment at Quest,
which Weidman denies. (See Doc. 70-2, Ex. A). Thus, the testimony of Mr. Vogt is
relevant and admissible.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant the motion in part and deny it

in part. An appropriate order follows.

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

Dated:

February 14, 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALICE MASCARINI,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
QUALITY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES :
& TRAINING, et al.,
:
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-1546
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of defendant
Michael Weidman’s (“Weidman”) motion (Doc. 68) in limine, and for the reasons set
forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion
(Doc. 68) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
1.

Evidence of Weidman’s prior relationship with Kay Zellers and
Theresa Torres is irrelevant and inadmissible. Any probative value of
this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice and jury confusion. See FED . R. EVID . 403.

2.

Evidence regarding the minor child of Anne Vogt shall be limited to
the fact that Phillip Vogt found Anne Vogt at Weidman’s home using a
child locating program on the child’s phone.

3.

Phillip Vogt’s testimony is relevant and admissible.

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