The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
ORDER OF COURT RE: PENDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Before the Court are numerous motions in limine to exclude evidence, one by plaintiff Amy Marcelle Allen (doc. no. 44) and seven by defendant James B. Peake, Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (docs. no. 47, 49, 51, 53, 58, 60 and 62). After careful consideration of the motions in limine, the responses thereto, the briefs in support and in opposition, and plaintiff's voluntary withdrawal of "her claim of Race Discrimination," see Plaintiff's Withdrawal of Less Then All Pending Claims (doc. no. 85), ¶ 4, the Court hereby enters the following rulings on all pending motions in limine.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Allegations of Discrimination Made by Plaintiff Against Prior Employers (doc. no. 44)
Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Although plaintiff has placed her mental health at issue, the Court finds that the undue prejudice to plaintiff substantially outweighs any probative value for defendant and would tend to confuse the jury. Fed.R.Civ.P. 403. Defendant's expert witness may opine as to her diagnosis and medical opinion, but must avoid testimony regarding employment complaints against prior employers, unless plaintiff somehow opens the door.
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Claim for Front Pay, Exclude Damages Calculations and Limit Claims for Back Pay (doc. no. 47)
Defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's claims for front pay and for back pay prior to May 2007 are properly excluded; however, the Court will permit plaintiff to present her calculations for back pay subsequent to that date.
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence of a Previous Whistle Blower Claim and a MSPB Initial Decision (doc. no. 49)
Defendant's motion is GRANTED. The Court agrees that evidence regarding plaintiff's 2004 non Title VII based whistle blower claim and Merit Systems Protection Board litigation is not relevant to this proceeding, which is now limited to plaintiff's claims for retaliation under Title VII (see Plaintiff's Stipulation (doc. no. 85) withdrawing her claims of discrimination on the basis of race).
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Regarding the 2005 Settlement Agreement, Including Its Terms (doc. no. 51)
Defendant's motion is DENIED. The fact of the settlement of plaintiff's prior Title VII complaint resulted in plaintiff's transfer from the transitional unit in which she claimed the discrimination had taken place is relevant and necessary to her claim that defendant retaliated against her in 2007 by transferring her back to that same unit. The Court agrees with plaintiff that the fact that there was a settlement that resulted in plaintiff's transfer from the unit in which she alleges she was subject to race discrimination of the settlement is relevant to her current claim of retaliation/ adverse employment decision. Introduction of such evidence does not violate Fed.R.Civ.P. 408. The parties shall craft and submit an appropriate limiting instruction on or before May 20, 2009.
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude All Opinion Testimony Regarding Patient Abuse and Neglect (doc. no. 53)
Defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The events surrounding plaintiff's alleged complaints about one patient are relevant and necessary to her claims of retaliation, and she may testify as a fact witness about those events, and in doing so, may render a lay opinion pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 701. The Court ...