Susan T. FIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE AMERICA CASH LOAN FACILITIES OF MICHIGAN, INC. and Advance America Advance Loan Centers, Inc., Defendants.

United States Of America District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

*862 *863 *864 Glen N. Lenhoff, Robert D. Kent-Bryant, Law workplace of Glen N. Lenhoff, Flint, MI, for Plaintiff.

James R. Mulroy, II, Lewis Fisher, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.

PURCHASE DENYING DEFENDANTS‘ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

LAWSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Susan T. Figgins, filed a five-count grievance alleging that the defendants fired her from her work as shop supervisor because she took FMLA keep, ended up being expecting, is obese, and because of her age. The Court formerly denied in component the defendants‘ motion for summary judgment, therefore the known facts associated with the instance are summarized for the reason that viewpoint. Now prior to the Court are a couple of motions in limine the defendants have actually filed in expectation of test. Inside their very first motion, they look for to exclude proof about the defendants‘ remedy for other workers, specially Erica Starkey; viewpoint testimony through the plaintiffs colleagues on whether or not the plaintiff had been a good worker or experienced discrimination or retaliation; viewpoint testimony from witnesses from the plaintiffs witness list whom, are not disclosed during breakthrough; Dr. Audrey Stryker’s expert testimony; and proof of front pay, back pay, and punitive damages. The defendants ask for an order preventing the plaintiff from arguing that the plaintiff was demoted or replaced by Shannon Wolschlager; *865 offering evidence of branch manager positions that became available while the plaintiff was disabled and unable to fill them; and excluding expert testimony by Dr. Rao in their second motion, filed after the deadline established by the case management order.

The goal of motions in limine happens to be described by one commentator the following:

Report of Kentucky learn Committee, 1989, p. 5, quoted in Lawson, The Kentucky proof Law Handbook, pp. 33-34 (3d ed.1993). The training is sanctioned, at the least to some extent, because of the Federal Rules of proof as based in the injunction „to stop inadmissible proof from being recommended towards the jury in the slightest, such as for example making statements or provides of evidence or asking concerns into the hearing regarding the jury.“ Fed.R.Evid. 103(c).

Nevertheless, one difficulty that is practical governing on such motions may be the lack of context which comes if the challenged proof is served with one other proofs at test. It may be desirable quite often to defer governing on objections until test, much like a number of the defendants‘ evidentiary challenges here. For that reason, the Court will deal with all the defendants‘ contentions, but will likely not make „definitive rulings.“ See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). Each movement in addition to matters that are several in them are talked about in change.

We. Docket No. 30

A. Proof of discrimination from witnesses aside from the plaintiff

The defendants look for to exclude proof off their employees, particularly Erica Starkey, regarding just how these were treated because of the defendants. The actual only real evidence that is specific in this the main defendants‘ movement is proof that Ms. Starkey had been ended or perhaps discriminated against due to her fat. The defendants suggest that Ms. Starkey ended up being ended for severe misconduct. Following the termination, Ms. Starkey threatened Ms. LaBeff, whom desired a order that is restraining. The defendants suggest that all proof off their workers which they encountered discrimination due to how much they weigh should additionally be excluded. The defendants cite Federal Rules of proof 401 and 402.

The plaintiff states Erica Starkey witnessed a true number associated with reviews Ms. LaBeff made in regards to the plaintiff’s fat, and that testimony is actually relevant. In addition, the defendants argued inside their motion for summary judgment that Ms. LaBeff promoted an amount of obese employees and therefore Miranda Rogers, another worker, never heard Ms. LaBeff make derogatory statements concerning the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that she should always be allowed to introduce proof to your contrary. Perhaps the commentary about Ms. Starkey’s weight are highly relevant to show Ms. LaBeff’s discriminatory animus, she https://www.realbadcreditloans.com/payday-loans-sc/ contends. Also, proof off their workers shouldn’t be banned considering that the defendants have never identified evidence with enough specificity when it comes to plaintiff to react.