United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.
AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of various Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 33, 34, 35, 84, 85, 86) and by Defendants (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 39, 87, 88, 89), and all documents submitted in support thereof, and in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine To Exclude References To Racial Bias of Non-Supervisory Co-Workers Or Reliance On The “Cat’s Paw” Theory Of Liability (ECF No. 89), is DENIED.
2. Defendants’ Motion in Limine To Exclude Any References To The Use Of The Word “N-GG-R” By Non-Similarly Situated Employee John Jervay (ECF No. 88), is DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Reference To The Alleged Use Of The Word “N-gg-r” By Non-Similarly Situated Employee Joyce Evans (ECF No. 87), is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude February 9, 2009 EEOC Determination (ECF Nos. 33, 85), is GRANTED.
5. Defendants’ Motion in Limine To Preclude Testimony Regarding Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages (ECF No. 39), is DENIED.
6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine To Preclude Testimony Of Steve Dickstein, Steve Sheinen And Bethann Jacobski (ECF No. 38), is DENIED.
7. Defendants’ Motion in Limine To Exclude Any References To A Lawsuit Filed Seven Years Ago By Richard Noonan Against Fox Television Stations of Philadlephia, Inc. And The Alleged Use Of The Word “N-gg-r” Years Ago By A Non-Similarly Situated Former Employee, David Huddleston (ECF No. 37), is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, as follows:
A. Defendants’ request to exclude references to David Huddleston’s use of the word “n-gg-r” is DENIED.
B. Defendants’ request to exclude reference to the Noonan action is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is permitted to introduce into evidence Joyce Evans’s testimony from the Noonan action, in which she discusses her comments to management about the racial composition of the news team. Plaintiff will not be permitted to offer any other evidence regarding the Noonan action at trial.
8. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Of His Termination from WHTM in 1999 And 2003 Lawsuit against WHTM (ECF Nos. 34, 35, 84), will be GRANTED.
9. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine To Preclude Evidence Of Plaintiff s Lawsuit Against Daily News (ECF No. 86), will be DENIED, in ...