Lawson-Brewster v. River Valley School Dist

4 Citing cases

  1. Affare v. Univ. of Tenn.

    1:22-cv-18 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 12, 2024)

    Given the foregoing, the Court finds that the “me too” testimony concerning McLean's belief that he was discriminated against and the legitimacy of the EMT Department's prior faculty searches is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risks of unfair prejudice, unnecessary delay, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. See Hosse v. Sumner Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 3:13 C 520, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248810, at *13-14 (M.D. Tenn. July 27, 2018), affd, 776 Fed.Appx. 902 (6th Cir. 2019) (concluding that “me too” testimony was properly excluded where “its probative value [was] substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury); Lawson-Brewster v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 617 F.Supp.2d 589, 594 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (excluding “me too” evidence because, among other things, it was unfairly prejudicial, risked confusing the issues, and would require a trial within a trial as to the validity of the “me too” allegations).

  2. Pianko v. Gen. R.V. Ctr.

    20-cv-13371 (E.D. Mich. May. 23, 2023)

    Alternatively, Defendants contend that, even if these comments had probative value, any such value would be “substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice.” (ECF No. 82, PageID 3752-53) (citing Lawson-Brewster v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 617 F.Supp.2d 589, 594-95 (W.D. Mich. 2008) and Abernathy v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., No. 10-cv-131, 2013 WL 12099309 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2013)).

  3. Festerman v. Cnty. of Wayne

    Case No. 13-11874 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 24, 2014)

    While a doctor's note recommending limited working hours may indicate a "need" for leave, it does not indicate the "reason" for leave. See Lawson-Brewster v. River Valley Sch. Dist., No. 06-58, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33060, at *5 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (holding that a doctor's note advising plaintiff to remain off work for four days did not constitute sufficient notice of plaintiff's depression).

  4. Rhynes-Hawkins v. Potter

    No. 06-2763-STA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 10, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    The Sixth Circuit has held that an employee may be terminated if "the dismissal would have occurred regardless of the employee's request for or taking of FMLA leave."See also Lawson-Brewster v. River Valley School Dist., 2008 WL 1820908, *12 (W.D. Mich. 2008) ("Plaintiff has neither alleged nor shown that she was denied benefits to which she was entitled when she took leave in March and April 2004.").Id. at 507.