Angiuoni v. Town of Billerica, 838 F.3d 34

Angiuoni, an Army veteran, was a probationary Billerica police officer (2009) whose probation was extended after repeated performance problems documented by Field Training Officers (FTOs).
Reported issues included vehicle accidents, poor radio/reporting skills, failure to qualify on a May 2009 rifle test, difficulty navigating/locating addresses, argumentative behavior, and a citizen complaint.
After continued problems during the extension, Chief Rosa prepared a written Report of Deficiencies and the Town Manager terminated Angiuoni.
Angiuoni sued under USERRA, claiming his military status was a motivating factor in the termination. A jury found for defendants; Angiuoni appealed, asserting three evidentiary errors at trial.
On appeal Angiuoni challenged: (1) exclusion of a post-termination rifle-test exhibit; (2) the court’s failure to sequester witnesses under Fed. R. Evid. 615; and (3) admission of evidence about the number of veterans in the Department.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of post-termination rifle-test evidence	The post-termination bullseye photo would rebut the May 2009 DNQ by showing a faulty rifle or misleading test result	Post-termination shooting is irrelevant to fitness at time of employment and may mislead; other officers shot fine with the same rifle	Court affirmed exclusion — district court did not abuse discretion; post-termination test had limited relevance and low probative value
Sequestration of witnesses (Fed. R. Evid. 615)	Failure to sequester permitted witnesses to hear others and tailor testimony, prejudicing cross-examination	No motion for sequestration was made; court has discretion to sequester sua sponte and declined	Court affirmed — no abuse of discretion; plaintiff did not request sequestration and showed no prejudice
Admission of evidence re: number of veterans in Department	Such evidence was inflammatory and suggested plaintiff had to prove Department-wide anti-veteran bias rather than bias by specific actors	Plaintiff’s pleadings alleged generalized animus; evidence of employer-wide bias is relevant to motive and to rebut absence of bias	Court affirmed — evidence was relevant (albeit of low probative value) given plaintiff’s allegations and USERRA precedent; not an abuse of discretion

Sinai v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 3 F.3d 471 (1st Cir. 1993) (standard for reciting facts as jury could have found them)
Valázquez-García v. Horizon Lines of P.R., 473 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must show military status was a substantial or motivating factor; burden-shifting under USERRA)
Sheehan v. Dep't of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (examples of circumstantial evidence of USERRA motive: inconsistencies, employer hostility, disparate treatment)
Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (trial judge may control scope of rebuttal testimony)
United States v. Laboy, 909 F.2d 581 (1st Cir. 1990) (admissibility of rebuttal evidence is within trial court discretion)
United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) (district court has broad discretion on witness sequestration)
United States v. McDonough, 727 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2013) (standard of review discussion where party failed to object)