Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Proctor Fin., Inc.

644 F.Supp.3d 400

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. PROCTOR FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants.

Civil Case No. 19-11911

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Signed December 6, 2022

Diana Marin, Nedra D. Campbell, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Detroit Field Office - Legal, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Gillian P. Yee, Marlo J. Roebuck, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Southfield, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER ADDRESSING MOTIONS IN LIMINE (ECF NOS. 53, 54, 55, AND 57)

LINDA V. PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this civil rights lawsuit filed on June 27, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleges that Proctor Financial, Inc. ("Proctor") retaliated against its former employee, Angela Kellogg ("Kellogg"), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 1.) Specifically, the EEOC alleges that Proctor disciplined Kellogg after she filed a charge with the EEOC alleging race discrimination. (Id. at Pg ID 4.) On September 30, 2021, the Court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46.) On October 14, 2021, Proctor filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of summary judgment (ECF No. 47), and that motion was denied on July 27, 2022 (ECF No. 50). The matter is presently before the Court on the EEOC and Proctor's motions in limine. (ECF Nos. 53, 54, 55, and 57.) The motions have been fully briefed. For the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the EEOC's first motion in limine (ECF No. 53), denies Proctor's first motion in limine (ECF No. 54), grants in part and denies in part Proctor's second motion in limine (ECF No. 55), and denies the EEOC's second motion in limine (ECF No. 57).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

"A motion in limine is 'any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.' " Louzon v. Ford Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556, 561 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984)). Prior to the commencement of trial, courts in this District note that motions in limine serve the following purposes:

[To] (i) facilitate trial preparation by providing information pertinent to strategic decisions; (ii) reduce distractions during trial and provide for a smoother presentation of evidence to the jury; (iii) enhance the possibility of settlement of disputes without trial; (iv) provide some additional insulation of the jury from prejudicial inadmissible evidence; and (v) improve the conditions under which the trial judge must address evidence issues by reducing the need for hasty decisions during the heat of trial.

Gonzalez Prod. Sys., Inc. v. Martinrea Int'l Inc., No. 13-CV-11544, 2015 WL 4934628, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2015) (citing Figgins v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Centers of Michigan, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 2d 861, 865 (E.D. Mich. 2007)).

A district court's ruling on such a motion is "a preliminary, or advisory, opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court." United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1983), aff'd, 469 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984)). District courts have "broad discretion" over matters involving the admissibility of evidence at trial. United States v. Chambers, 441 F.3d 438, 455 (6th Cir. 2006) (quotations and citation omitted). "Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce, 469 U.S. at 41 n.4, 105 S.Ct. 460.

As an initial step, when analyzing admissibility, a court must consider whether the evidence is relevant. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, "[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. The Sixth Circuit emphasizes that the threshold for determining the relevancy of evidence is low. See United States v. Lang, 717 F. App'x 523, 530 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating that "evidence is relevant if it 'advance[s] the ball' one inch") (quoting Dortch v. Fowler, 588 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2009) (describing the relevance standard as "extremely liberal")). "[E]ven if a district court believes the evidence is insufficient to prove the ultimate point for which it is offered, it may not exclude the evidence if it has the slightest probative worth." United States v. Whittington, 455 F.3d 736, 738-39 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

In contrast, irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Further, a "court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also Robinson v. Runyon, 149 F.3d 507, 514-15 (6th Cir. 1998) (Evidence is inadmissible "if there is a danger of unfair prejudice, not mere prejudice.") (emphasis in original). "District courts enjoy 'broad discretion' in making the prejudice determination." United States v. Asher, 910 F.3d 854, 860 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Carney, 387 F.3d 436, 451 (6th Cir. 2004)).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Law Regarding the EEOC's Retaliation Claim

As an initial matter, the only claim pending for trial is the EEOC's retaliation claim against Proctor on behalf of the charging party, Angela Kellogg. Title VII prohibits discrimination against an employee because that employee engaged in conduct protected by the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); see also Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 729-30 (6th Cir. 2014) (explaining that Title VII's opposition clause protects individuals who file "formal discrimination charges with the EEOC," as well as individuals who submit "complaints to management" and engage in "less formal protests of discriminatory employment practices"). Title VII retaliation claims can be established "either by introducing direct evidence of retaliation or by offering circumstantial evidence that would support an inference of retaliation." Laster, 746 F.3d at 730 (quoting Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2008)). "Direct evidence is that evidence which, if believed, requires no inferences to conclude that unlawful retaliation was a motivating factor in the employer's action." Imwalle, 515 F.3d at 543-44 (citing Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., 348 F.3d 537, 542 (6th Cir. 2003)). Absent direct evidence of retaliation, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing: (1) she engaged in protected activity (2) that was known to the defendant, (3) the defendant thereafter took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff, and (4) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and adverse employment action. Imwalle, 515 F.3d at 544.

In denying the parties' cross motions for summary judgments, the Court found that a reasonable juror could conclude that the EEOC presented both direct evidence and a prima facie case of retaliation. (ECF No. 46 at Pg ID 1396-98.) Importantly, the Court also noted that a reasonable juror could find that Proctor raised a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason to support its adverse employment action against Kellogg. (Id. at Pg ID 1400.) Conclusively, the Court denied the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, holding that the EEOC ". . . presents enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [Proctor's] reason for suspending Kellogg was a pretext for unlawful retaliation." (Id. at Pg ID 1401.) The EEOC is ultimately seeking injunctive relief, backpay, compensation for past and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, punitive damages, and attorney costs and fees. (ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 5-7.)

B. The EEOC's First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 53)

The EEOC first asks the Court to exclude the following items:

(1) Evidence regarding Kellogg's job application, resumes, and prior employment history.

(2) Kellogg's 2019 notebook.

(3) Kellogg's social media accounts and employment information within those accounts.

(4) Evidence regarding civil proceedings and any other lawsuit involving Kellogg.

(5) Evidence regarding medical conditions that do not relate to damages for emotional harm.

(ECF No. 53 at Pg ID 1469.) Each item will be addressed in turn.

i. Evidence regarding Kellogg's job application, resumes, and prior employment history

The EEOC seeks to exclude evidence and testimony regarding Kellogg's 2008 employment application to Proctor, her resumes, and her employment history including but not limited to her employment with GMAC n.k.a. Ally Financial, Inc., MGIC Mortgage Services, LLC, and Birmingham Bancorp. (ECF No. 53 at Pg ID 1484.) The EEOC argues that this evidence is not relevant to its Title VII retaliation claim or Proctor's asserted defenses and therefore should be excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 401. (ECF No. 53 at Pg ID 1486.) In response, Proctor maintains that the aforementioned evidence is relevant to its after-acquired evidence defense, Kellogg's alleged damages, and her credibility in this action. (ECF No. 60 at Pg ID 1632.)

First, the Court already has ruled that the after-acquired evidence defense is inapplicable to the case at bar. (ECF No. 46 at Pg ID 1405.) The after-acquired evidence defense limits an employee's remedies where an employer can show it would have been entitled to terminate the employee for severe wrongdoing if it had known of the employee's wrongdoing at the time. (Id. at Pg ID 1403) (citing McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 362-63, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995)). Importantly, the defense applies only to cases where the employee was termina...