Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

John J. Kelly v. United States Steel Corporation

November 9, 2012

JOHN J. KELLY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terrence F. McVerry United States District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

Pending before the court are DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE (Document No. 68), with brief in support, filed by United States Steel Corporation ("U.S. Steel"); PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE PARTS OF MARIA LAMB'S VIDEO DEPOSITION (Document No. 79), filed by Plaintiff John J. Kelly ("Kelly"); and DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS (Document No. 80). The motions have been thoroughly briefed by both sides and are ripe for disposition.*fn1

Factual and Procedural History

Kelly contends that he was discharged from his employment by U.S. Steel due to his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 957, et seq. ("PHRA"). Kelly obtained a bachelor of science degree in accounting, a Masters Degree in Business Administration ("MBA"), and is a certified management accountant and certified public accountant ("CPA"). Kelly allegedly received good performance reviews throughout his twenty (20) plus years with U.S. Steel as an accountant. U.S. Steel objects to Plaintiff's Exhibits 29-35, which are copies of Kelly's performance reviews for calendar years 2002 through 2008.

From 2000-2009, Kelly was Manager of Real Estate Accounting. Beginning in 2007, Kelly reported to Tom Beecher and Beecher prepared the performance reviews for 2007-2008 (Plaintiff Exhibits 34 and 35). The performance reviews reflected in Plaintiff Exhibits 29-33 were prepared by David Becker.

In April 2009, Beecher retired. Thirty-nine (39) year-old Laurie Recchia was selected to succeed Beecher as Director of Real Estate Accounting, rather than fifty-two (52) year old Kelly. Within months, Kelly was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP") by Recchia. Thereafter, unsuccessful on the PIP, Kelly was terminated from his employment at U.S. Steel.

U.S. Steel contends that Kelly was discharged due to his poor work performance, which is extensively detailed in the record evidence. Recchia testified that she had numerous concerns about Kelly's job performance from the beginning of working with him, which she discussed before placing him on a PIP, and which eventually led to his termination. Kelly contends that U.S. Steel seized on minor issues as a pretext to cover-up the decision it had already made to terminate him to due to his age.

The Court has denied the motion for summary judgment filed by U.S. Steel. Jury selection occurred on November 6, 2012 with trial scheduled to commence on November 13, 2012.

Discussion

In its motion in limine, U.S. Steel asks the Court to preclude Kelly from introducing the following evidence: (A) performance reviews he received from supervisors prior to 2009; (B) opinions from his former supervisors about his performance; (C) testimony regarding accounting principles and methodology; (D) Kelly's opinion of his own performance; (E) alleged age-related statements by Recchia and Nate Harper; (F) back pay from February-August 2010; (G) front pay; and (H) lost pension benefits. The Court will address these issues seriatim.

Performance Reviews and Opinions of Former Supervisor Tom Beecher

In denying the motion for summary judgment, the Court recognized that a reasonable jury could infer age discrimination based, in part, on the stark contrast between the positive performance reviews Kelly received from Tom Beecher, his immediate prior supervisor, and the negative performance reviews he received almost immediately from Recchia. The performance reviews and Beecher's testimony regarding the job performance of Kelly are probative and not unfairly prejudicial. The performance reviews are U.S. Steel documents and Beecher is a former long-time U.S. Steel employee/supervisor. Such evidence will be admissible. See Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724, 731-32 (3d Cir. 1995) (criticizing district court for excluding performance evaluations from former supervisor and explaining that it is the role of the jury to evaluate competing evaluations of employee's job performance to determine pretext).

U.S. Steel will have ample opportunity to explain its theory of the case to the jury and Kelly must be given the same opportunity. The relief sought in this motion would improperly restrict his ability to do so, and is contrary to the Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court in denying the summary judgment motion. It is not sufficient to suggest that the jury might be confused by such testimony because the Court (with the input of the parties) will thoroughly instruct the jury as to the applicable law. In accordance with the foregoing, these motions in limine are DENIED.

Earlier Performance Reviews

Performance reviews of Kelly prior to 2007, and the testimony of his supervisors/evaluators prior to Beecher, are obviously more remote in time and, thus, less probative of the issues in this case. On the other hand, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff Exhibits 29-33 reflect Kelly's performance on the same job, Manager of Real Estate Accounting, from which he was terminated. The performance reviews are U.S. Steel documents and are not unfairly prejudicial. The exhibits will be admissible, provided that a proper foundation is established, although the Court urges Plaintiff to be cognizant of all of the considerations set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 403 (confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, cumulative evidence, etc.). Testimony and/or exhibits regarding any job performance appraisals of Kelly prior to 2002 would be too remote in time and will not be admissible into evidence at trial. In accordance with the foregoing, these motions in limine are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Testimony Regarding Accounting Principles

U.S. Steel contends that only an expert may offer testimony about accounting principles or methodology, or an opinion about how such principles were applied by Recchia in evaluating Kelly's performance. U.S. Steel argues that Kelly is precluded by Fed. R. Evid. 702 from offering such testimony or opinions. Plaintiff points out that -- given the unique education and experience of the people in this case -- such subjects are within the personal knowledge of the witnesses. In particular, Plaintiff avers that Beecher has 39 years of experience in applying the norms of the accounting profession to the context of U.S. Steel's real estate accounting practices. Kelly, likewise, has a bachelor of science degree in accounting, an MBA, is a certified management accountant and CPA and has 20 years of experience applying the principles of the accounting profession in the context of U.S. Steel's business.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 recognizes that a witness may become qualified to offer opinion testimony "by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." Rule 701 also permits the admission of "lay opinion testimony" that is rationally based on the witness' perception or is helpful to clearly understanding the witness' testimony or to determining a fact in issue. In Donlin v. Philips Lighting North America Corp., 581 F.3d 73, 81 (3d Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained that if a lay witness has particularized knowledge by virtue of his/her experience, he/she may testify-even if the subject matter is specialized or technical-because the testimony is based upon the layperson's personal knowledge rather than on specialized knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702. This will be a very accounting-intensive case, as both sides will apparently present exhaustive testimony about a myriad of alleged accounting ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.