Defendant's limine motion for employment cases involving AGE/RACE (FED)

[Style of Case]

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Defendants _____ and _____, sued individually and as President of _____ (“_____” and “_____” respectively and “Defendants” collectively), before the voir dire examination of the jurors, before opening statements, and before the introduction of any evidence, file this Motion in Limine and Brief in Support Thereof.

Defendants respectfully move the Court to instruct the Plaintiff, counsel for Plaintiff, and all of the Plaintiff’s witnesses to refrain from mentioning or referencing through interrogation, voir dire examination, opening statement, answers to questions, arguments or otherwise, either directly or indirectly, any of the matters hereafter set forth, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court, outside the presence and hearing of the prospective jurors and the jurors ultimately selected to try this case.

MOTION IN LIMINE

1. SENIORITY

   Defendants seek to preclude (a) Plaintiff from introducing evidence of Plaintiff’s seniority because such evidence is improper and (b) Plaintiff’s counsel from arguing concerning seniority because such argument is improper.

   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.

   We state without equivocation that the seniority a given plaintiff does accumulate entitles him to no better nor worse treatment in an age discrimination case.

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

   GRANTED:____________

   DENIED:____________

   MODIFIED:____________

   Plaintiff does/does not object to the Court’s ruling on this portion of the motion in limine.

2. OTHER ALLEGED ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION

   Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence of other alleged acts of 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.

   Evidence of other alleged acts of discrimination, other charges of discrimination or other suits alleging discrimination is irrelevant to the issue of whether Defendants intended to discriminate against Plaintiff when [e.g., Plaintiff is position was eliminated]. Schrand v. Federal Pacific Electric Company, 851 F.2d 152, 156 (6th Cir. 1988). Moreover, 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 alleged acts of discrimination because the jury may infer discriminatory intent from such acts when they are not probative of the Defendants’ intent in [e.g., eliminating Plaintiff’s position as [ ] ]. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 104 S.Ct. 2794, 2799 (1984). As the U.S. Supreme Court noted:

   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.’

   Id. at 2799.

   The jury may easily become confused concerning the issues it must decide when confronted with evidence of other alleged acts. The prejudicial effect is particularly significant in this case because Plaintiff never has pled that Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. Further, Plaintiff admitted in [his/her] deposition that the only discrimination about which Plaintiff knows was [e.g., the elimination of Plaintiff’s job.] See Plaintiff’s deposition, page xxx, line xxx.

   If evidence of other alleged acts of discrimination is introduced, Defendants will be forced to defend and justify conduct as to each other alleged act, thereby creating a series of “mini-trials”

   that will cause delay, waste time and, more importantly, divert the attention of the jury away from the intent issue that is central to Plaintiff’s claims.

   Therefore, Defendants submit that Plaintiff should be precluded from introducing evidence of other alleged acts of discrimination or other charges or suits alleging discrimination.

   GRANTED:____________

   DENIED:____________

   MODIFIED:____________

   Plaintiff does/does not object to the Court’s ruling on this portion of the motion in limine.

3. STRAY DISCRIMINATORY REMARKS

   Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from introducing testimony or other evidence of an alleged stray discriminatory remark by any current or former employee, agent, officer or director of [Employer].

   Plaintiff testified at [his/her] deposition that [he/she] had never heard a stray discriminatory remark made by anyone at [Employer]. See Plaintiff’s deposition, page xxx, line xxx. Thus, any alleged stray discriminatory remarks that Plaintiff or any witness on Plaintiff’s behalf would raise now is hearsay and highly prejudicial. Courts have excluded such evidence where the statements are sporadic or the plaintiff fails to prove that the statements are related to the challenged employment decision. Smith v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 875 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1989). As the Smith court held:

   [Stray remarks], when unrelated to the decisional process, are insufficient to demonstrate that the employer relied on illegitimate criteria, even when such statements are made by the decision-maker in issue.

   In this case, there is no evidence of any discriminatory remarks or any relationship between any alleged remarks and the Plaintiff’s age or race discrimination claims. As a result, evidence concerning any alleged remarks by anyone at [Employer] should be excluded.

   GRANTED:__________

   DENIED:__________

   MODIFIED:__________

   Plaintiff does/does not object to the Court’s ruling on this portion of the motion in limine.

4. NON-HOME OFFICE EMPLOYEES

   Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from introducing testimony of employees who had no supervisory relationship to Plaintiff and who were not involved in the decision to eliminate Plaintiff’s position...