Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-3423, Section "R" (2)
February 19, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
In this case, plaintiffs Debbie Forrest and Holly Smith filed suit against their former employee, Dynamic Security, Inc., alleging gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Before the Court is defendant, Dynamic Security, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence. specifically, defendant asks the Court to exclude: (1) racial statements made by any former employee of the defendant; (2) claims of harassment. For the following reasons, defendant's motion is denied.
I. EVIDENCE OF RACIAL STATEMENTS
Defendant asks the Court to exclude racial statements made by defendant and its former employees on the basis that plaintiffs did not allege racial discrimination in their complaint, plaintiffs oppose the motion and contend that the jury should be allowed to determine whether the use of racial slurs and epithets constitutes sexual harassment. Neither party submits any case law in support of their position.
In Kelly v. Boeing Petroleum Services, Inc., 61 F.3d 350, 357-58 (5th Cir. 1995), the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling excluding allegedly discriminatory statements regarding racial or sexual bias as irrelevant under Rule 401 in the context of a suit alleging disability discrimination. The Court found that there was "a tenuous relationship here between discrimination that could be reflected in . . . derogatory remarks [made by plaintiff's supervisor] about race, sex, and national origin and discrimination based on handicap, which is the focus of [plaintiff's] complaint." Id. at 358, citing Rauh v. Coyne, 744 F. Supp. 1181, 1183 (D.D.C. 1990) (excluding evidence of racial bias in a case alleging discrimination based on sex and marital status based on the "weak correlation" between the two types of discrimination). The Fifth Circuit also sustained the district court's ruling under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, finding that the district court properly applied the balancing test.
The Fifth Circuit, nonetheless, left the door open for a contrary evidentiary ruling had plaintiff's supervisor, who allegedly made the derogatory remarks, participated in the disputed adverse employment decisions. See Kelly, 61 F.3d at 358. In upholding the district court's decision that racial or gender animus was irrelevant under Rule 401, the Court specifically noted that was not a case where "bigoted superiors directly made or participated in the employment decisions complained of." Id. In its Rule 403 analysis, the Fifth Circuit also focused on the plaintiff's supervisor's "attenuation from the decision-making process" and "the dearth of evidence showing discriminatory animus or knowledge of the BPS executives who did participate directly in that decision-making process." Id. at 360.
In this case, defendant in its Motion in Limine has not identified who made the racially derogatory statements or what level of participation that person had in plaintiffs' terminations. Because the Court has no facts before it, the Court is unable to determine whether the racially biased statements are relevant under Rule 401 or whether the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value of the statements under Rule 403. Accordingly, the Court denies defendant's Motion in Limine to exclude all exclude racially derogatory statements, without prejudice to its right to renew its objections to specific evidence in a context in which the Court can determine the identity of the speaker and the speaker's involvement, if any, in relevant employment decisions.
II Evidence of Sexual Harassment
Defendant also seeks to exclude claims of harassment because plaintiffs's claim is for gender discrimination and not for sexual harassment. Defendant has not cited any case law in support of its motion.
In Kelly, the Fifth Circuit reiterated that "a district court can abuse its discretion by limiting a plaintiff's ability to show the atmosphere in which the plaintiff operated." 61 F.3d at 358 (citations and internal quotations omitted). In Bordelon v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 1998 WL 560351, at *2 (E.D. La. 1998), the district court admitted information regarding sexual harassment into evidence, finding that evidence of sexual harassment had probative value with regard to whether the alleged failure to promote was motivated by gender discrimination. Further, in Minshew v. Brown, 1996 WL 601436, at *1 (E.D. La. 1996), the district court found that evidence that plaintiff's supervisor sexually harassed other employees was relevant to the question of whether he intentionally discriminated against plaintiff because such evidence "tends to show his attitude towards women, his treatment of others in similar circumstances and the general work environment created by his actions."
The Court therefore finds that evidence of sexual harassment is relevant and admissible to show the workplace conditions and environment.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant's Motion in Limine.