United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
CARLTON W. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are the Defendant's two motions in limine. The
motions are briefed and ready for adjudication.
Defendant's First Motion in Limine
Court grants all counts conceded by Williams, and considers
IC's remaining requests in turn.
Hearsay and Anecdotal Evidence of Other Adverse Employment
moves to exclude hearsay and anecdotal testimony about
actions taken against other employees that are not similarly
situated. See Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co.,
212 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Anecdotes about
other employees cannot establish that discrimination was a
company's standard operating procedure unless those
employees are similarly situated to the plaintiff.”).
point is well-taken, but its objection must await the
testimony. The Federal Rules of Evidence will apply in this
case, obviously, and hearsay is not admissible unless
otherwise authorized. See Fed. R. Evid. 802.
The Merits of Prior Discipline Assessed Against
to exclude as irrelevant any testimony, evidence, or argument
that Williams' prior attendance violations were
unwarranted. Defendant's motion is granted. To the extent
Williams attempts to challenge the bases or merits of his
previous disciplinary actions, Plaintiff is barred from doing
so. Williams' disciplinary record is irrelevant to the
issue of whether IC violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act
(FRSA) following Williams' June 13, 2015 absence. IC,
however, is allowed to introduce evidence of Williams'
employment history including prior discipline in order to
prove its non-retaliatory reason for its employment action.
Both sides are advised that there is no need to go into
detail of Williams' prior violations. We do not need
mini-trials on these instances as they would distract the
jury from its consideration of the ultimate issue in this
Validity or Fairness of Attendance Guidelines
seeks to exclude arguments that the Attendance Guidelines are
unlawful or unfair. Williams contends that the
“fairness of the IC Attendance Guidelines is
inextricably linked to [Defendant's] violation of the
FRSA.” Docket No. 67 at 2. The Court agrees with
Williams and denies the Defendant's motion.
Effect of Williams' Termination on His Spouse or
moves to preclude Williams from introducing evidence of
emotional distress suffered by his spouse or family, because
the FRSA provides relief only to employees. Defendant's
motion is reserved, as Williams will have the right at trial
to make a proffer that such evidence is relevant to his
The Medical Condition of ...