EVANS v. CERNICS, INC. et al

Filing 80

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion in Limine; granting 61 Motion in Limine; granting 62 Motion in Limine, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 10/26/2017. (krh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARY EVANS, JR.,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-125

)

v.

)

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)

CERNICS, INC. d/b/a CERNICS
SUZUKI, JEFFREY CERNIC, and
EDWARD CERNIC, JR.,

)

)
)
)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.

Introduction

Pending before this Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude Any
Evidence About or Concerning Defendants' Political Affiliations (ECF No. 61), (2) Plaintiff's
Motion in Li mine Seeking to Exclude Any Evidence About or Concerning Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment, Defendants' Motion in Opposition, and This Honorable Court's Order
Denying Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 62), and (3) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Any
Reference to Any Findings, Conclusions, and/or Determinations, or Lack Thereof, by the
PHRC, 1 EEOC,2 and the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Office. (ECF No. 60.)

1

2

The Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

II.

Background
This is a disability discrimination action. 3 In early 2010, Plaintiff began working as the

general manager for Defendant Cernics, Inc., a business owned by Defendants Jeff Cernic and
Ed Cernic, Jr. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants terminated his employment in late 2012 when
Plaintiff informed Defendants that he was being treated for heart-related medical conditions,
despite the fact that Plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of his job with a
reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act ("PHRA") by refusing to
accommodate his disabilities, terminating him because of his actual and/or perceived medical
conditions, and retaliating against him for exercising his rights under the ADA. (ECF No. 1.)
III.

Discussion
A. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Defendants' Political Affiliations
Evidence about Defendants' political affiliations is irrelevant in this case. Under the

Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence is relevant if "(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or
less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Evidence about Defendants' political affiliations is irrelevant because it does not make it more
or less probable that Defendants discriminated and/or retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of
the ADA and the PHRA. 4

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the Americans with Disability Act claim and
supplemental jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367.
4 This Court also notes that Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude
Any Evidence About or Concerning Defendants' Political Affiliations.
3

2

Accordingly, this Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude
Any Evidence About or Concerning Defendants' Political Affiliations. (ECF No. 61.)

B. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding This Court's Ruling on Summary
Judgment
Evidence about this Court's decision to deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
should be excluded. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, "[t]he court may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403. As Plaintiff correctly
observes, a jury presented with evidence about this Court's ruling on summary judgment might
infer that, because this Court held that a reasonable jury could find for Defendants, the jury
should find for Defendants at trial. Obviously, this inference would unfairly prejudice and bias
Plaintiff. Moreover, presenting evidence about summary judgment would likely confuse the
issues, as the standard for summary judgment is different from the standard of proof a party
must satisfy to prevail at trial. Therefore, the probative value of this Court's denial of Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
bias, and confusing the issues. 5
Accordingly, this Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude
Any Evidence About or Concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants'
Motion in Opposition, and This Honorable Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No.
62.)
s This Court also notes that Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude

Any Evidence About or Concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants' Motion in
Opposition, and This Honorable Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion.

3

C. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding the Findings, Conclusions, and/or
Determinations or Lack Thereof of the PHRC, EEOC, and the Pennsylvania
Unemployment Compensation Office
Plaintiff's third final Motion in Limine is styled as a Motion to exclude findings,
conclusions, and/or determinations by the PHRE, the EEOC, and the Pennsylvania
Unemployment Compensation Office. (See ECF No. 60.) However, as Defendants observe, the
last paragraph of Plaintiff's Brief in Support of his Motion in Limine (ECF No. 63) seeks to
exclude an additional type of evidence-any "evidence regarding Plaintiff applying for, seeking
... unemployment benefits ... ". (Id. at 9.) Evidence concerning the findings, conclusions, and
determinations by governmental agencies is distinct from evidence about Plaintiff's application
for, or seeking, unemployment benefits. Therefore, this Court will address these issues
separately.

1. Evidence Concerning the Findings, Conclusions, and/or Determinations of the Governmental
Agencies
This Court agrees with Plaintiff that evidence regarding the findings, conclusions,
and/or determinations or lack thereof by the PHRC, EEOC, and the Pennsylvania
Unemployment Compensation Office should be excluded. 6
Evidence about the PHRC and the EEOC determinations should be excluded because it
presents a risk of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Plaintiff
dual-filed charges of discrimination with the PHRC and EEOC to exhaust his administrative
The Court notes that Defendants state that "Defendants are not presenting any witnesses who could
provide testimony concerning any findings, conclusions or determinations by the PHRC, EEOC, or the
Pennsylvania Unemployment Commission Office." (ECF No. 70 at 1.) In fact, it does not appear that
Defendants object to Plaintiff's Motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to exclude findings of these state
agencies. Rather, Defendants focus their brief on responding to Plaintiff's request to exclude evidence
"regarding Plaintiff applying for, seeking ... unemployment benefits." (Id.) This Court addresses this issue
in Section lll.(C)(2), infra.

6

4

remedies before filing the instant suit. (ECF No. 60 at 1.) The EEOC terminated its processing of
Plaintiff's charge. (ECF No. 60-1 at 2.) If the jury were presented with this information, it might
infer that, because the EEOC failed to conclude that illegal discrimination occurred, the jury
must similarly find against Plaintiff. However, "[t]he EEOC's inability to conclude that
violations occurred based on an investigation, the extent of which is unknown, would offer little
assistance to the jury." Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ., No. CIV A 04-331, 2007 WL 869633,
at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2007). Moreover, District Courts in the Third Circuit regularly grant
motions in limine to exclude references to EEOR and PHRC reports in discrimination cases. See,

e.g., id. (granting the plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude determination by the PHRC and
EEOC); Waters v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, No. 1:13-CV-2652, 2017 WL 24670, at *4
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2017) (granting the defendant's motion in limine to exclude reference to the
EEOC determination report, and noting that "the costs associated with admission of this
evidence under Rule 403 substantially outweigh its minimal probative value."); Habiak v. Lehigh

Valley Hosp., No. CIV.A. 05-1074, 2006 WL 560149, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2006) (granting the
defendant's motion in limine to exclude EEOC and PHRC determinations). Therefore, this Court
will grant Plaintiff's Motion in Limine in regards to the findings, conclusions, and determinations
by the PHRC and the EEOC.
This Court will also grant Plaintiff's Motion in Limine with regards to Plaintiff's award of
unemployment benefits. When the Defendant is not the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
evidence that the plaintiff received unemployment benefits should be excluded. Schilling v.

Napleton's Ellwood City Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep Ram, No. 15CV0145, 2015 WL 6509436, at *2 (W.D.
Pa. Oct. 28, 2015) (citing Craig v. Y & Y Snacks, Inc., 721 F.2d 77, 83 (3d Cir. 1983)). As the Third

5

Circuit held in Craig, "[u]nemployment compensation most clearly resembles a collateral benefit
which is ordinarily not deducted from a plaintiff's recovery. Under the collateral benefit rule,
payment which a plaintiff receives for his or her loss from another source is not credited against
the defendant's liability for all damages resulting from its wrongful or negligent act." Id. at 83
(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 920A(2) (1979)). Therefore, evidence of Plaintiff's receipt
of unemployment benefits should not be presented to the jury.
Accordingly, this Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion in Limine with regards to the
findings, conclusions, and/or determinations, or lack thereof, made by the PHRA, the EEOC,
and the Unemployment Compensation Office.
2.

Evidence Concerning Plaintiff's Applying for and Seeking Unemployment Benefits

While evidence about the findings of the administrative agencies (including the
Unemployment Compensation Office) will be excluded, evidence regarding Plaintiff's

application for unemployment benefits is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. Plaintiff's
statements to the Unemployment Compensation Office about why he ceased his employment
are relevant because they make it more or less probable that Defendants discriminated and/or
retaliated against him, which is the ultimate issue at question in this case. Statements that
Defendants made on their Employer Unemployment Questionnaire Form are similarly relevant,
as Defendants' statements about why Plaintiff ceased employment make it more or less likely
that Defendants committed the unlawful discrimination alleged by Plaintiff. As Defendant
notes, the forms that Plaintiff and Defendants completed required that the filer certify his or her
statements as true. (See ECF No. 70-1 at 6; ECF No. 71-2 at 2-4.) Moreover, Plaintiff and
Defendants filled out their respective forms just weeks after Plaintiff ceased his employment,

6

which adds to the probative value of the documents. Further, Plaintiff has not cited any
authority to support his proposition that this Court should exclude the information that the
parties provided to the Unemployment Compensation Office.
This Court finds that the information the parties submitted to the Unemployment
Compensation Office is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403.
Therefore, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to
exclude evidence submitted by the parties to the Unemployment Compensation Office.

IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, this Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion in Limine

Seeking to Exclude Any Evidence About or Concerning Defendants' Political Affiliations. (ECF
No. 61.) This Court will also GRANT Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude Any
Evidence About or Concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants' Motion
in Opposition, and This Honorable Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 62.) This
Court will GRANT in part, and DENY in part, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding the
Findings, Conclusions, and/or Determinations or Lack Thereof of the PHRC, EEOC, and the
Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Office. (ECF No. 60.)
An appropriate order follows.

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARY EVANS, JR.,

)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

)

Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-125
Judge Kim R. Gibson

)
)

CERNICS, INC. d/b/a CERNICS
SUZUKI, JEFFREY CERNIC, and
EDWARD CERNIC,
Defendants.

)
)
)

)

ORDER
AND NOW, this

2~~ay of October, 2017, upon consideration of the Motions in

Limine filed by Plaintiff Gary Evans, Jr. (ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62), and in accordance with the
accompanying memorandum opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude Any Evidence About or Concerning
Defendants' Political Affiliations (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude Any Evidence About or Concerning
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants' Motion in Opposition, and This
Honorable Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding the Findings, Conclusions, and/or Determinations or
Lack Thereof of the PHRC, EEOC, and the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation
Office (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in PART.
a. Specifically, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to the findings,
conclusions, and/or determinations or lack thereof by the PHRC, EEOC, and the
Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Office. However, Plaintiff's Motion is
DENIED with respect to statements that Plaintiff and Defendants made to the
Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Office.

B~-£~
KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1