Defendant's limine motion in employment cases in general (fed)

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On _______________, 20____, counsel for Defendants conferred with ________________, counsel for Plaintiff, regarding Defendants’ Motion in Limine and Brief in Support Thereof. Agreement could not be reached; therefore, it is presented to the Court for a determination.

___________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW Defendants sued individually and as President of _____________________ and files this their Motion in Limine and Brief in Support Thereof and would respectfully show the Court the following:

I.

MOTION IN LIMINE

Defendants respectfully move the Court:

1. SENIORITY

   Motion: To preclude (a) Plaintiff from introducing evidence of her seniority because such evidence is improper; and (b) Plaintiff’s counsel from making argument concerning seniority because such argument is improper.

   Argument: Seniority of employees is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s age discrimination and race discrimination claims. As the Fifth Circuit has stated:

   “[S]eniority and age discrimination are unrelated. The ADEA targets discrimination against employees who fall within a protected age group, not employees who have attained a given seniority status.”

   Williams v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 120, 130 n.17 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 (1982) (emphasis added).

2. OTHER ACTS OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION

   Motion: To preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence of other acts of alleged discrimination, other charges of discrimination or other suits alleging discrimination because (a) such evidence is irrelevant and (b) the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

   Argument: Evidence of other acts of alleged discrimination, other charges of discrimination or other suits alleging discrimination are irrelevant to the issue of whether Defendants intended to discriminate against Plaintiff when her position was eliminated. Schrand v. Federal Pacific Electric Company, 851 F.2d 152, 156 (6th Cir. 1988). Alternatively, the probative value of such evidence, if any, is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

   Defendants could be severely prejudiced by evidence of other acts of alleged discrimination because the jury may infer discriminatory intent from such acts when they are not probative of the intent of the persons who eliminated Plaintiff’s position as area data processing specialist in the area 7 branch office. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 104 S.Ct. 2794, 2799 (1984) (“Proving isolated or sporadic discriminatory acts by the employer is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of discrimination; rather it must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that `[age] discrimination was the company’s standard operating procedure--the regular rather than the unusual practice.”). Likewise, the jury may easily become confused concerning the issues it must decide when confronted with evidence of other acts. This is particularly true in this case because Plaintiff has never plead that Defendants engaged in a pattern or...