Barber v. Subway

Filing 62

ORDER GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART pltf Barber's MIL 34 to exclude @ trial reference to & evid of findings, conc or determinations of EEOC & PHRC re: Barger's admin claims... (see Paras 1 & 2 for specifics). (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/7/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KIERA BARBER,
Plaintiff
v.
SUBWAY,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-613
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 34) in limine by plaintiff Kiera Barber (“Barber”) requesting that the court
exclude from admission at trial any reference to and any evidence of the findings,
conclusions, or determinations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) regarding
Barber’s administrative discrimination claims, and further upon consideration of
the opposition arguments (Doc. 36) of defendant Subway (“Subway”), asserting that
it should not be precluded from using Barber’s prior inconsistent statements during
the administrative proceedings as impeachment evidence at trial in this matter, (see
id. at 2), but otherwise identifying no substantive probative value in the dismissal
and notice of rights issued by the administrative agencies, (see id.), and the court
observing that relevant evidence is that which has a tendency to make a fact of
consequence in the matter “more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence,” FED. R. EVID. 401, but that the court may, in its discretion, “exclude
relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of

. . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] . . . misleading the jury,” FED. R. EVID.
403, and it appearing that, as a general rule, agency determinations are admissible
in discrimination cases subject to the balancing test of Rule 403, see El v. Se. Pa.
Trans. Auth., 479 F.3d 232, 248 n.19 (3d Cir. 2007), and that the decision whether
such evidence “is more probative than prejudicial is within the discretion of the
trial court, and to be determined on a case-by-case basis,” Coleman v. Home Depot,
Inc., 306 F.3d 1333, 1345 (3d Cir. 2002), but that courts within the Third Circuit
generally are disinclined to admit such evidence when it is of limited probative
value because a jury might assign inappropriate weight to the agency decision, see,
e.g., Morris v. Rumsfeld, No. 1:01-CV-1729, 2007 WL 951450, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 27,
2007) (citing Kovacs v. Conmed Corp., No. 04-1667, 2006 WL 1340767, at *1 (E.D. Pa.
May 11, 2006); Cambra v. Rest. Sch., No. 04-2688, 2005 WL 2886220, at *4 (E.D. Pa.
Nov. 2, 2005)), and the court finding that the notice of rights and dismissal letter sub
judice is distinct from a determination letter or other substantive agency ruling in
that the notice merely advises Barber of the agency’s decision not to pursue the
asserted claims, (see Doc. 35-1, Ex. A at 4), and the court concluding that the letter
itself is of minimal probative value as to the substantive elements of Barber’s claims
or Subway’s defenses thereto, see FED. R. EVID. 403, and may cause confusion of the
issues or mislead the jury, see id., and should be inadmissible at trial, and the court
further concluding that any ruling on the admissibility of Barber’s statements to the
EEOC and PHRC or the balance of the agencies’ records for impeachment purposes

2

would be premature at this juncture as that evidence is not before the court, and is
most appropriately addressed at trial, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Barber’s motion (Doc. 34) is GRANTED to the extent that the EEOC’s
dismissal and notice of right to sue letter (Doc. 35-1, Ex. A at 4) shall be
inadmissible at trial.

2.

To the extent Barber’s motion (Doc. 34) seeks exclusion at trial of other
EEOC or PHRC records, or Barber’s own statements made during the
course of proceedings before those agencies, the motion is DENIED
without prejudice.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania