Opinion
Case No. 94 C 7585
October 31, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The purpose of this Memorandum Opinion and Order is to rule on defendant Uarco, Inc.'s motion in limine. The motion includes 20 separate requests to exclude evidence, which we will address in turn.
1. Size of 1993 plant workforce
Uarco has moved to bar Huff from claiming that the size of the Watseka workforce increased in 1993, thus making his supervisory demotion unnecessary. Uarco's submission reflects that the increase in size was entirely in the Order Processing Center, a separate unit that was not controlled by the decision makers allegedly responsible for Huff's demotion. Huff has no evidence that the workforce in the manufacturing plant (where he worked) increased. He argues that if there was a need for more order processors, there must have been a need for more plant workers. This argument is without any basis in the evidence, and it is directly refuted by Uarco, which has submitted uncontradicted evidence that the reason for the increase in order processors was that the Order Processing Center was converted to a regional facility serving several plants. Finally, Huff has offered nothing to support his contention that supervisory positions in the Order Processing Center were interchangeable with those in the manufacturing plant. The evidence is therefore excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
2. 1993 terminations
Huff says that 10 of the 11 Watseka employees terminated in 1993 were over 40 and that this is evidence supporting his claim of age discrimination. This evidence is not probative of discrimination, however, because Huff has offered no indication of the qualifications of the persons who were retained and those who were terminated. See Swanson v. Leggett Platt, Inc., 154 F.3d 730, 734 (7th Cir. 1998). The evidence is therefore excluded pursuant to Rule 402.
3 4. Non-hiring and non-training of press operators over 40 years old
Huff wishes to present to the jury the fact that Uarco hired no press operators over 40 years old since the early 1960's and that the company did not train employees over age 40 in the finishing or press departments during that period. However, Huff has no evidence concerning the applicant pool and thus no basis to claim that there were any over-40 applicants, let alone that Uarco discriminated against any such person. The fact that gathering such evidence might have been somewhat burdensome to Huff does not excuse him from laying the necessary foundation for admissibility. The evidence is not probative of discrimination in this case and is therefore excluded under Rule 402. See Smith v. General Scanning, Inc., 876 F.2d 1315, 1321 (7th Cir. 1989).
5 6. Early retirements and claim of formal or informal age 62 retirement policy
A number of Uarco supervisors retired early in late 1993 and early 1994; Huff claims that this is evidence of age discrimination. But Uarco has submitted uncontradicted evidence that all of these retirements were voluntary. Truly voluntary retirements do not give rise to an inference of age discrimination. See Robinson v. PPG Industries, Inc., 23 F.3d 1159, 1163 (7th Cir. 1994). Huff has offered nothing suggesting that the retirements were anything other than voluntary.
Uarco also seeks to bar Huff from claiming that the company had a formal or informal policy of retirement at age 62. If this were so, it would be relevant and probative of age discrimination. But Huff has provided no basis for such a claim.
For these reasons, the evidence described in paragraphs 5 and 6 is excluded pursuant to Rules 402 and 403.
7. Exhibits 149 150
Uarco moves to exclude plaintiff's exhibits 149 and 150, two letters to the union representing Uarco plant employees that were drafted for the signature of Ron Trillet (who made the decision to demote Huff) but were never sent. It is not clear who wrote the letters; Huff says that Trillet did, while Uarco says that they were drafted by a company attorney for Trillet to sign. But if the letters are reflective of Trillet's state of mind or their contents were adopted by him in some way, they may be probative of his attitude toward older workers even if they were never sent. Uarco's motion is therefore denied as to paragraph 7.
8. Removal of press operators' chairs
In 1981, Trillet allegedly took away chairs that press operators had previously been able to use while working. Huff offers no basis for drawing an inference of age bias from Triulet's actions. The evidence is not relevant or probative and is therefore excluded pursuant to Rule 402.
9. Uarco's retirement plan
Uarco's retirement plan, which was established in 1953, provided that employees who elected early retirement before age 55 could receive their contributions to the plan in a lump sum payout but that employees who elected early retirement at or after age 55 could not. Judge Coar ruled in Schoolman that this policy constituted prohibited age discrimination.
Huff has argued nothing to indicate that Trillet, the decision maker in Huff's case, had anything to do with establishing or implementing the discriminatory policy or that the policy had any bearing on his decision concerning Huff. The Court therefore excludes evidence concerning the retirement plan pursuant to Rules 402 and 403.
10. Foreign ownership of Uarco
Huff agrees that evidence that Uarco was owned by a Japanese company should be excluded. Uarco's motion is therefore granted as to paragraph 10.
11. Transfer of work to Corning plant
Huff agrees that evidence that Uarco transferred certain work from the Watseka plant to a plant in Corning, Iowa should be excluded. Uarco's motion is therefore granted as to paragraph 11.
12. Evidence regarding front pay
Huff agrees that evidence regarding front pay should be excluded; whether to award front pay and how much are questions for the Court, not the jury. See, e.g., Downes v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 41 F.3d 1132, 1141 (7th Cir. 1994). Uarco's motion is therefore granted as to paragraph 12.
13. Dan Allison's promotion
In 1994, Dan Allison, who was 36 years old, was promoted to pre-press supervisor in the Order Processing Center ahead of Larry Waters, age 50, who was the first choice of the general supervisor of the Pre-Press Department, Ken Polson. Huff has offered nothing to indicate that Ron Trillet was involved in this decision in any way or that Huff was qualified for the position. The evidence is not relevant because it has no relationship to anyone in the decision making process concerning Huff; and the Court therefore excludes it pursuant to Rules 402 and 403. See Cheek v. Peabody Coal Co., 97 F.3d 200, 203 (7th Cir. 1996).
14. Testimony by Schoolman and by Clark plaintiffs concerning age discrimination
Huff wants to call William Schoolman to testify that he was demoted or constructively discharged in November 1993 due to his age and also wants to call the plaintiffs in Clark v. Uarco to testify that they were not recalled by Uarco due to their age. Both Schoolman's and the Clark plaintiffs' claims, however, were rejected by juries. For this reason, the testimony of the plaintiffs on this score is of minimal (if any) probative value; indeed, if we were to allow the testimony we would also have to permit defendants to elicit that Schoolman and the Clark plaintiffs' claims had been rejected by juries. In light of the fact that those plaintiffs' claims have been litigated and determined against them, admission of the challenged testimony in this case would create a serious danger of confusion of the issues and would result in a wasteful diversion of the trial into relitigation of the other cases. The Court therefore excludes the evidence pursuant to Rule 403. 15. Testimony by Clark plaintiffs concerning layoffs
The Seventh Circuit concluded in its decision remanding this case for trial that evidence of the non-recalls tended to show Uarco's discriminatory motive, see Huff v. Uarco, Inc., 122 F.3d 374, 386 (7th Cir. 1997), but that conclusion came before the jury verdict in Clark.
In addition to their failure-to-recall claim, the Clark plaintiffs alleged that they had been laid off based on their age. Judge Gottschall granted summary judgment in Uarco's favor on this claim on the grounds that it was time-barred, but she allowed admission of evidence concerning the layoffs at trial. Uarco argues that the jury's finding against the Clark plaintiffs necessarily implies that they could not support their layoff claims. Not so; that issue was not presented to the jury for its determination. Thus unlike the non-recall claims, the layoff claims have not been rejected on their merits. Nor are they so remote in time or type from the decision challenged in this case as to diminish their probative value. The Court concludes that evidence regarding the layoffs is relevant to show discriminatory intent or motive and that this evidence is not categorically subject to exclusion under Rule 403. However, the Court does not intend by this ruling to permit the focus of the trial of Huff's case to shift to the story of the Clark plaintiffs. Our rejection of Uarco's motion in limine is therefore without prejudice to Uarco's right to object at trial pursuant to Rule 403 if the layoff evidence becomes unnecessarily cumulative or wasteful of trial time.
16. 1994 changes to labor contract's layoff procedure
Huff has failed to provide the Court with any explanation about how changes in Uarco's labor contract that came after Huff's demotion could possibly have any bearing on the issues to be tried in this case. The evidence is excluded pursuant to Rules 402 and 403.
17. Plaintiff's exhibits 188 241
Uarco seeks to exclude plaintiff's exhibits 188 and 241, memos concerning "Uarco Transition Projects" which generally address whether a more senior employee should be considered for positions that remain after downsizing if the employee can be trained to perform the required job skills. Though Trillet testified in his deposition that he understood these memos to concern office positions, not positions in the plant, the memos on their face are not limited in this respect. These memos are admissible for essentially the same reasons we have previously concluded that Uarco's Industrial Relations Manual is admissible. Trillet can explain his understanding when he testifies. Uarco's motion is denied as to paragraph 17.
18. Plaintiff's exhibit 160.
Huff does not object to the exclusion of plaintiff's exhibit 160, a submission by union representatives to the National Labor Relations Board regarding an unfair labor practice charge that the NLRB in turn forwarded to Uarco. The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay and is likewise inadmissible pursuant to Rules 402 and 403.
Huff argues that there should be a reciprocal prohibition on admission of matters relating to NLRB proceedings. The Court cannot evaluate this request without some indication of what Huff wishes to exclude on these grounds.
19. Timing of Clark's rehiring
Terry Clark has testified that he was rehired after he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Huff has argued nothing that indicates that this has any bearing at all on the issues in the present case. The evidence is excluded pursuant to Rules 402 and 403.
20. Plaintiff's exhibit 205
Huff has not challenged Uarco's argument that plaintiff's exhibit 205 should be excluded. Uarco's motion is granted as to paragraph 20.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion in limine is granted as to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 20, and denied as to paragraphs 7, 15, and 17.