The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McClure
On May 18, 2006, plaintiff Melinda Knepp instituted this civil action against defendant United Stone Veneer, LLC ("USV"), setting forth claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), and under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951, et seq. ("PHRA"). In her four-part complaint, plaintiff contended that she was sexually harassed by David Barrett, defendant's employee and plaintiff's supervisor, continuously over a ten-month period; USV was aware of the harassment but failed to take action to prevent or rectify the problem and plaintiff was terminated from employment after repeatedly rebuffing Barrett's advances and notifying management of his activities.
USV filed a motion for summary judgment on July 16, 2008. Two days later, plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment. On September 23, 2008, we issued orders denying the parties' motions for summary judgment.
On February 25, 2009, we granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to join Alcoa Home Exteriors, Inc. ("Alcoa") and Ply Gem Industries, Inc. ("Ply Gem") as defendants. (Rec. Doc. No. 25). An Amended Complaint was filed on February 26, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 144). USV filed "Defendant's Motion in limine," (Rec. Doc. No. 129)., and "Defendant's Motion in limine Number 2," (Rec. Doc. No. 131), on February 12, 2009, and "Defendant's Motion in limine Number 3," (Rec. Doc. No. 134), and "Defendant's Motion in limine Number 4," (Rec. Doc. No. 136), on February 13, 2009, to preclude plaintiff from introducing certain evidence and arguments at trial. USV wishes to exclude the following evidence and arguments from being introduced at trial:
1. Testimony of plaintiff's vocational expert, Terry P. Leslie, (Rec. Doc. No. 129);
2. Plaintiff's oral request to the jury for a specific monetary award related to pain and suffering and punitive damages, if the Court charges on punitive damages, (Rec. Doc. No. 131);
3. Evidence of David J. Barrett's 1993 convictions for simple assault and false imprisonment, (Rec. Doc. No. 134); and
4. Evidence concerning Andrea Barrett's compensation as office manager at USV. (Rec. Doc. No. 136).
Supporting and opposing briefs have been filed and the matter is ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, we will grant USV's unnumbered motion in limine, motion in limine Number 2, motion in limine Number 3 and motion in limine Number 4.
Plaintiff concurs in motion in limine Number 2. As a result, we bar plaintiff from making any statement or argument to the jury suggesting a specific monetary award for pain and suffering or punitive damages. Therefore, the following analysis will focus squarely on USV's desire to preclude defendant from introducing Leslie's expert testimony and any evidence of Andrea Barrett's earnings or evidence regarding David Barrett's conviction.
I. Motion in Limine (Unnumbered) & Motion in Limine Number 4
USV contends that Leslie's expert testimony should not be admitted because there is no foundation for such testimony and it is purely speculative. Specifically, USV states that Leslie's lost future wages analysis is improper because it is based upon the unsubstantiated claim that Knepp would be promoted to office manager and that she would have been compensated at the same rate as Andrea Barrett, the individual who was promoted to office manager after Knepp's departure from USV. Plaintiff contends that Leslie's testimony is based upon facts of record and ...