United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE
SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion in Limine . Defendant seeks to exclude at trial the introduction of documents, testimony, and/or statements to the jury relating to several matters. The Court addresses each of Defendant's requests in turn.
Observance of Robert E. Lee's Birthday
Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any evidence regarding the claim that Larry Montgomery, Plaintiff's supervisor at the Tupelo Municipal Court, posted a notice that the court would be closed in observance of Robert E. Lee Day rather than Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Plaintiff offered evidence relating to this incident at the summary judgment stage in support of her claim for discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII. The Court granted summary judgment as to that claim and the only claims remaining for trial are Plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and retaliation in violation of Title VII. In gauging the relevance, or lack thereof, of potential evidence, the question before the court is whether such evidence "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, " and secondly, whether "[that] fact is of consequence in determining the action." FED. R. EVID. 401(a) and (b). In light of the Court's prior ruling, therefore, and to the extent Plaintiff may seek to introduce such evidence to prove Defendant discriminated against her based on her race, Defendant's motion is granted.
Preferential Treatment of Paula Furniss
Defendant also seeks to exclude any evidence relating to Plaintiff's claim that Montgomery showed preferential treatment to a white employee, Paula Furniss, with regard to leave. Again, Plaintiff offered this evidence at summary judgment in support of her race discrimination claim. For the same reasons the Court has found Defendant's motion must be granted with respect to Montgomery's alleged observance of Robert E. Lee Day, the Court finds Defendant's motion with regard to Montgomery's treatment of Furniss is likewise granted.
Preferential Treatment of Buddy Bell
Next, Defendant moves the Court to exclude any evidence that, unlike Plaintiff, Defendant allowed a white male, Buddy Bell, to work as a bailiff without the requirement that he requalify with a firearm. Defendant argues that, even if Bell was allowed to work without being required to requalify, it would have been the result of an error by the Northeast Mississippi Law Enforcement Training Academy, not the Municipal Court. However, Plaintiff testified that during the time Bell worked as a bailiff, none of the bailiffs were required to qualify with a firearm. Whereas Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate her by refusing to relieve her of the requirement of qualifying with a firearm, and central to that claim is a determination regarding whether qualifying with a firearm is an essential function of the bailiff position, the Court finds that evidence that bailiffs were not always required to qualify with a firearm is relevant. See FED. R. EVID. 401(a) and (b) (Relevant evidence is that which "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, " where "[that] fact is of consequence in determining the action."). Further, though relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the Court perceives no such risk here. FED. R. EVID. 403. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion with regard to such evidence without prejudice.
Preferential Treatment of Other Officers Under Investigation
Defendant seeks to exclude the introduction of any evidence pertaining to the claim that, unlike Plaintiff, two officers were allowed to continue to engage in off-duty employment while under investigation by Defendant. Defendant argues first that, unlike Plaintiff, these officers were not bailiffs. However, the policy Defendant allegedly relied upon in prohibiting Plaintiff's off-duty employment was a Tupelo Police Department policy and was not limited to Municipal Court bailiffs. Second, Defendant contends that the policy prohibiting officers from engaging in off-duty employment while under internal investigation was not promulgated until September 2011, and thus any evidence regarding officers' off-duty employment prior to that time is irrelevant and prejudicial.
The record at summary judgment was unclear and incomplete as to the relevant time periods the policy at issue was enacted, the officers in question were allegedly under investigation but allowed to continue off-duty employment, and the enforcement of the policy at issue. In gauging the relevance, or lack thereof, of potential evidence, the question before the Court is whether such evidence "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, " and secondly, whether "[that] fact is of consequence in determining the action." FED. R. EVID. 401(a) and (b). In doing so, the Court should remain mindful that the "standard for relevance is a liberal one." Kelly v. Boeing Petroleum Serv's. Inc. , 61 F.3d 350, 357 (5th Cir. 1995). Based on the present record, the Court finds that evidence regarding other officers' continued off-duty employment while under investigation is relevant to Plaintiff's retaliation claim. Further, the Court presently perceives of no particular risk of undue prejudice under Rule 403, although Defendant may re-urge such an objection at trial if necessary. Accordingly, Defendant's motion with regard to such evidence is denied without prejudice.
Additionally, Defendant seeks to exclude Plaintiff's medical records that it contends were not provided to Defendant during the period of time at issue in this matter and any testimony related to the content of those records. As the Court explained in its previously entered memorandum opinion, a plaintiff seeking to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on failure to accommodate a disability must show that "(1) the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the disability and its consequential limitations were known by the covered employer; and (3) the employer failed to make reasonable accommodations for such known limitations." Feist v. Louisiana, Dep't of Justice, Office of the Atty. Gen. , 730 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, whether Plaintiff was disabled and whether Defendant knew Plaintiff was disabled are separate issues for a jury to determine. The Court finds that Plaintiff's medical records are relevant to ...