U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Consol Energy, Inc. et al
Filing
148
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CONFIRMING THE PRONOUNCED ORDER OF THE COURT AND SCHEDULING EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ORAL ARGUMENT TO CONSIDER DAMAGES AND PENDING MOTIONS. Court GRANTS 76 Motion in Limine and 77 Motion in Limine. DENIES 79 Mo tion in Limine. DENIES AS MOOT 132 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/26/2015 01:15 PM in Wheeling Magistrate Judge Courtroom, 4th Floor before Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp Jr. as to 80 MOTION in Li mine DEEFNDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF LOST PENSION BENEFITS FOR BEVERLY BUTCHER AND MEMO IN SUPPORT and 133 MOTION for Permanent Injunction . Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 5/8/2015. (Copy counsel of record) (jmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:13CV215
(STAMP)
CONSOL ENERGY, INC. and
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CONFIRMING THE PRONOUNCED ORDER OF THE COURT
AND SCHEDULING EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ORAL ARGUMENT
TO CONSIDER DAMAGES AND PENDING MOTIONS
I.
Background
This action was filed by the plaintiff, the United States
Equal Employment Commission (“EEOC”), pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
In the
complaint, EEOC seeks a permanent injunction and monetary relief
for the charging party, Beverly R. Butcher, Jr. (“Butcher”).
EEOC
alleges that the defendants, Consol Energy, Inc. (“Consol Energy”)
and Consolidation Coal Company (“Consolidation Coal”)(collectively,
“the defendants”), instituted practices that denied Butcher a
religious accommodation.
Prior to trial, both parties filed multiple motions in limine.
In a previous order, this Court granted one of those motions,
defendants’ motion in limine No. 1 for bifurcation of the claim for
punitive damages.
A trial in this action then commenced.
After
the first day of trial, this Court, by pronounced order, denied the
defendants’ motion in limine No. 2 to exclude any evidence of
accommodation to other employees and granted EEOC’s motion in
limine to exclude argument and evidence concerning irrelevant and
hypothetical rationale for defendants’ actions.
On the second day
of trial, this Court granted EEOC’s motion in limine to exclude
argument and evidence concerning hypothetical union grievance or
hypothetical labor arbitration outcome.
This order will set forth
those oral pronouncements in more detail.
After the trial concluded, a verdict in favor of EEOC was
entered and the jury assigned only compensatory damages.
However,
based on this Court’s previous ruling, the jury did not make a
determination
based
on
other
damages
that
may
be
awarded.
Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion for entry of judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
motion for permanent injunction.
EEOC then filed a
Those motions are fully briefed
and ripe for review.
Finally, this Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule regarding back pay, front pay, and other damages on behalf
of Butcher.
The parties have submitted briefs on these issues and
this Court is now prepared to hear oral argument and receive
evidence concerning those issues.
2
II.
A.
Discussion
EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence
Concerning
Irrelevant
and
Hypothetical
Rationale
for
Defendants’ Actions
EEOC argued that evidence as to Mike Smith’s (“Smith”) state
of mind should not be admitted as any belief by Butcher as to
Smith’s state of mind is pure speculation.
This arises from the
defendants’ argument that Butcher’s supervisors believed that
Butcher would not use the scanner, period, even with the type-in
method.
EEOC
contended
that
Smith
was
not
involved
in
the
decision-making regarding Butcher’s request and thus this evidence
is irrelevant.
Additionally, EEOC asserted that this evidence is
misleading and irrelevant because it is undisputed that Consol
never discussed the type-in method with Butcher and never gave him
the option to consider that alternative.
The
defendants
argued
that
Butcher’s
response
to
and
intentions of utilizing the hand scanner are relevant to Consol’s
decision-making process and what accommodations it offered Butcher.
Further, the defendants contended that the evidence EEOC seeks to
exclude will likely be used on cross-examination and/or impeachment
of Butcher and thus should not be prematurely limited without the
benefit of hearing EEOC’s direct examination of Butcher.
This Court found that the suggested testimony and evidence was
speculative as what Butcher believed Smith believed would not
provide actual proof of Smith’s state of mind.
3
See ECF No. 141 at
200.
Thus, this Court found that the evidence was irrelevant. ECF
No. 141 at 200; Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Further, this Court found that
the value of such evidence would be substantially outweighed by the
danger that the jury may be misled or confused. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Accordingly, EEOC’s motion in limine (ECF No. 76) was GRANTED.
B.
EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence
Concerning Hypothetical Union Grievance or Hypothetical Labor
Arbitration Outcomes
EEOC moved this Court to exclude the defendants from arguing
that
Butcher
should
have
accepted
disciplinary
action
and
discharge, then filed a union grievance, instead of retiring
because he likely would have prevailed in arbitration. EEOC argued
that
this
argument
is
irrelevant
and
speculative
and
thus
inadmissible. Further, EEOC contended that this is irrelevant
because Title VII does not require an employee to seek arbitration
nor
does
it
require
an
employer
to
refuse
a
reasonable
accommodation unless ordered to do so by an arbitrator.
In response, the defendants argued that the availability of
the
union
grievance
procedure
to
Butcher
is
relevant.
The
defendants conceded that religious discrimination claims are not
subject to a grievance. However, the defendants asserted that they
believe it is relevant that a grievance procedure is available for
challenging
progressive
discipline
policies.
The
defendants
contended that this is relevant as to the third prong that EEOC
must show in order to make a prima facie case for reasonable
4
accommodation, that Butcher was disciplined for his belief.
The
defendants argued that Butcher was not disciplined because he
retired before the progressive discipline policy was implemented
against him and was not induced to do so by Consol.
Thus, the
defendants asserted that the evidence is relevant.
This Court found that evidence regarding the union grievance
was irrelevant as federal labor law cannot trump Butcher’s rights
under Title VII. ECF No. 142 at 8-9; Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Further,
this Court found that the proffered evidence was irrelevant as to
the defendants’ constructive discharge claim and other defense
theories. Id.
Finally, this Court found that introduction of such
evidence would constitute unfair prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule
of Evidence 403. ECF No. 142 at 8-9.
Accordingly, this motion in
limine (ECF No. 77) was DENIED.
Testimony regarding the above evidence had been received
during the first day of trial.
After considering and denying a
motion for mistrial from the defendants, this Court gave a limiting
instruction to the jury instructing the jury to disregard any
testimony presented on the first day of trial concerning a possible
union grievance or labor arbitration.
ECF No. 142 at 17-18.
This
Court reasoned that this Court’s deferment of the motion initially
and the giving of a limiting instruction did not and would not
cause unfair prejudice such as to constitute reversible error or
5
unfair prejudice such as to cause the situation to exist where the
case could not properly move forward. Id. at 13-14.
C.
Defendants' motion in limine to Exclude any Evidence of
Accommodation to other Employees
The defendants argued that evidence of a type-in accommodation
to two other employees should be excluded as it is irrelevant. The
defendants asserted that they followed the same procedure with
Butcher, which was to offer the left hand, palm side-up approach
before the type-in bypass.
Additionally, the defendants contended
that Butcher refused to use the system at all and thus the type-in
bypass was not considered an option. The defendants further argued
that the evidence is irrelevant as the other two employees were not
making a religious accommodation request but rather had physical
abnormalities which impeded their ability to use the scanner.
In response, EEOC argued that the type-in approach used by
other miners is proof that the defendants did not offer Butcher a
reasonable accommodation and thus this evidence is relevant.
This Court found that the evidence regarding other miners was
relevant pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and should not be
excluded.
ECF
No.
141
at
211.
This
Court
determined
that
accommodations provided to other miners would be a fact that would
be of consequence in determining whether the defendants provided
Butcher with a reasonable accommodation. Id.
Accordingly, the
defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 79) was DENIED.
6
D.
Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment Order under Rule
54(b)
The defendants have withdrawn this motion.
See ECF No. 138.
As such, the defendants’ motion for entry of judgment order under
Rule 54(b) (ECF No. 132) is DENIED AS MOOT.
E.
Hearing on Remaining Issues
As stated previously, this Court had entered an order setting
a briefing schedule regarding back pay, front pay, and other
damages.
This Court informed the parties that it would schedule a
hearing regarding those issues.
consider those issues.
This Court is now ready to
This Court also believes it would be
beneficial to hear oral argument and conduct an evidentiary hearing
on the remaining motion in limine, which has been deferred by this
Court because it is a legal issue to be considered following the
jury verdict, defendants’ motion in limine No. 3 to exclude
evidence of lost pension benefits for Beverly Butcher, and EEOC’s
motion for a permanent injunction.
Thus, the parties are DIRECTED to appear at the Wheeling
Federal Courthouse in the Magistrate Judge Courtroom, fourth floor,
Wheeling, West Virginia, on May 26, 2015 at 1:15 p.m.
The South
Courtroom is currently scheduled for another matter at the time
this hearing is scheduled. However, if the South Courtroom becomes
available by the time of the hearing, oral argument will be held in
the Federal Courthouse, South Courtroom, second floor, Wheeling,
West Virginia.
At this hearing, the Court will hear oral argument
7
on the pending issues of front pay, back pay, and pension benefits
as well as hearing testimony and receiving evidence on those
issues.
III.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, this Court finds that the
plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude argument and evidence
concerning irrelevant and hypothetical rationale for defendants’
action (ECF No. 76) and motion in limine to exclude argument and
evidence concerning hypothetical union grievance or hypothetical
labor
arbitration
defendants’
motion
outcomes
in
(ECF
limine
No.
to
77)
are
exclude
GRANTED.
any
evidence
accommodation to other employees (ECF No. 79) is DENIED.
The
of
Finally,
the defendants’ motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) (ECF
No. 132) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:
May 8, 2015
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?