Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. St. Joseph's/Candler Health Sys.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant.

No. CV420-112

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

December 28, 2022

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed this action against St. Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc. (“St. Joseph's”), alleging that it intentionally discriminated against Corey McKever by rescinding a job offer because of his HIV-positive status. See generally doc. 1. The case is scheduled for trial on January 10, 2023. Doc. 81 at 2; see also docket entry Sept. 1, 2022 (pretrial conference scheduled for January 3, 2023). Currently before the Court are two motions in limine, one filed by the EEOC, doc. 88, and one filed by St. Joseph's, doc. 90. The parties have filed their respective responses, docs. 97 & 98, and replies docs. 101 & 103. Additionally, each party has filed an unopposed motion to seal. See docs. 91 & 93; see also S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5. These motions are all ripe for disposition.^[1]

I. Background^[2]

McKever suffers from human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. Doc. 65 at 2. He applied for a Safety Officer position with St Joseph's, which operates hospitals on two separate campuses in Savannah, Georgia. Id. at 3. St. Joseph's gave him a conditional offer of employment, and he accepted. Id. at 4. He then underwent a post-occupational health screening through St. Joseph's Occupational Health Services Department (the “OHS Department”). Id. The manager of the OHS Department ultimately determined that McKever's HIV-positive status created a significant safety risk to others in the workplace, including patients, and decided to rescind his job offer. Id. at 8. St. Joseph's offered McKever an alternative position as an OR Support Tech, but he declined the offer. Id. at 9.

McKever filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, which found reasonable cause to believe that St. Joseph's violated the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). Doc. 65 at 9. The EEOC filed this lawsuit, alleging that St. Joseph's “deprive[d] McKever of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect[ed] his status as an employee because of his disability and/or because [St. Joseph's] perceived him as disabled.” Doc. 1 at 5. St. Joseph's answered and, after discovery, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 46. The EEOC filed its own Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 37. The District Judge denied St. Joseph's motion, and partially granted the EEOC's motion on two grounds. Doc. 65 at 30.

Based on the District Judge's disposition, McKever's HIV-positive status constitutes a disability under the ADA, id. at 12-13, and he satisfied the prerequisites for the Safety Officer position., id. at 15. All other issues remain for trial. See generally doc. 65; see also doc. 71 at 3 (“[I]ssues of material fact exist as to whether McKever suffered an adverse employment action under the ADA and whether the Hospital rescinded the conditional job offer for the Safety Officer position because of McKever's disability.”); id. (identifying as a remaining issue “whether McKever would pose a direct threat (including whether the Hospital based its decision to revoke McKever's job offer on an individualized assessment and current, objective medical evidence)”). Although framed slightly differently, the parties generally agree that the remaining issues are (1) whether St. Joseph's discriminated against McKever, (2) whether McKever posed a direct threat, and (3) whether McKever and the EEOC are entitled to damages or other relief. See doc. 88-1 at 2; doc. 98 at 3.

II. Legal Standard

Motions in limine in essence seek a prophylactic against the introduction of damaging evidence that could “‘irretrievably affect the fairness of the trial.'” Benson v. Facemyer, 2017 WL 1400558, at *1 (N.D.Ga. April 19, 2017) (quoting Soto v. Geico Indem. Co., 2014 WL 3644247 at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2014)). Courts grant them “‘only if the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible.'” Hamilton v. Lanier, 464 F.Supp.3d 1379, 1381 (S.D. Ga. 2020) (quoting Stewart v. Hooters of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 1752873, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jun. 18, 2007); see also Benson, 2017 WL 1400558, at *1 (quoting Wilson v. Pepsi Bottling Grp., Inc., 609 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1359 (N.D.Ga. 2009)).

Limine rulings are provisional, and the trial judge “may always change his mind during the course of a trial”. Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n. 3 (2000).

III. Unopposed Portions of Each Motion in Limine

Both the EEOC's and St. Joseph's Motions in Limine include requests to exclude evidence or issues which the other party does not oppose. See doc. 88-1 at 1; doc. 90 at 2. The Court GRANTS as unopposed the portions of each motion to which both sides agree. Doc. 88, in part; doc. 90, in part.

Specifically, the EEOC represents that the parties have agreed to the following:

(a)Defendant agrees that it will not ask Corey McKever or any other witnesses at trial about or otherwise reference Mr. McKever's sexual orientation or his sex life or related matters;

(b)Defendant agrees that it will not present evidence or testimony at trial as to Safety/Security Officer's injuries or incidents that occurred after the decision to rescind the job offer to Corey McKever was made; and (c) Defendant agrees that it will not present evidence or testimony at trial regarding the fact that the EEOC's proffered expert, William T. Gaunt, Ph.D., was excluded.

Doc. 88-1 at 1. Similarly, St. Joseph's seeks to exclude three categories of evidence with no opposition from the EEOC:

(a)“The EEOC agrees to refrain from any reference to or suggestion that damages, if any, are to be paid in whole or in part by any person, fund, entity, corporation, or insurance company other than St. Joseph's, including any veiled statement calculated to imply that St. Joseph's would not be responsible for the payment or any damages for which it might be found liable in this case.”

(b)“The EEOC will refrain from any statements regarding the Court's prior rulings on the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment, including, but not limited to, statements that the EEOC “won,” “already obtained judgment” on certain issues, or any reference that the EEOC has prevailed on issues in this case.”

(c) “The EEOC will refrain from making any statement, reference to, or elicit any testimony regarding the EEOC's finding of cause at the administrative level.”

Doc. 90 at 2; see also doc. 97 at 2.

IV. Opposed Portions of EEOC's Motion in Limine (Doc. 88)

A. McKever's Nondisclosure of his HIV Status to Prior Employers

The EEOC seeks to preclude St. Joseph's from introducing evidence that McKever did not disclose his HIV status to his prior employers. Doc. 88-1 at 2. It argues that the evidence is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, that any probative value is substantially outweighed by the risks enumerated in Rule 403, and that it is improper character evidence prohibited by Rule 404. St. Joseph's responds that the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible. Doc. 98 at 2-5.

The EEOC first argues McKever's prior nondisclosure is irrelevant. To be relevant, evidence must have a “tendency” to make a fact which is “of consequence in determining the action” “more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. “To determine whether a fact is of consequence, [the Court] looks to the elements of the cause of action.” Johnson v. Jennings, 772 Fed.Appx. 822, 825 (11th Cir. 2019); see also S. Grande View Dev. Co. Inc. v. City of Alabaster, 1 F. 4th 1299, 1309 (11th Cir. 2021). If evidence is irrelevant, it is inadmissible. Fed.R.Evid. 402. Even if evidence is relevant, it may be excluded if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. St. Joseph's argues that McKever's nondisclosure of his HIV to former employers “is relevant to the questions of whether he posed a direct threat and whether St. Joseph's conducted an individualized assessment in determining whether McKever would perform the essential functions of the Safety/Security Officer job with a reasonable accommodation.” Doc. 98 at 4. St. Joseph's further argues McKever “falsely represented that other employers provided him accommodations” and that St. Joseph's then “relied on this information as part of its efforts to determine if it could accommodate McKever in the same fashion.” Id. Not only does it contend this demonstrates the evidence's relevance, but also its admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2). Id.

As the EEOC point out, the “direct threat” analysis inquires “whether St. Joseph's conducted an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” Doc. 101 at 3 (emphasis in original) (internal quotes omitted); see also doc. 65 at 14 (discussing the direct threat analysis). Whether McKever informed his prior employers about his HIV status- particularly where St Joseph's does not identify those prior employers, indicate whether they required disclosure of his condition, or articulate how the “essential functions” of those prior jobs were similar to the Safety/Security Officer job-does not appear relevant to the inquiry. The EEOC contends the only plausible prior employer that could be relevant is “when McKever worked in a jail” which was prior to his HIV diagnosis. Doc. 101 at 3. Even if it is not completely irrelevant, any slight probative...