Daugherty v. Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors Inc, 1:12-cv-00883

Plaintiff Neil Daugherty sued Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors, d/b/a Farmers Home Furniture, for retaliation under Title VII/§ 1981; trial was set for November 2013.
Defendant conducted a post-resignation investigation, audit, and inventory count of Plaintiff’s store after Plaintiff resigned and sought to admit those investigation results at trial.
Defendant asserted an after-acquired evidence affirmative defense in its answer, relying on the investigation to limit damages and to show Plaintiff would have been terminated for other misconduct.
Plaintiff sought to exclude portions of the investigation evidence as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial (including gambling and alleged use of prostitutes/strippers); he also moved to exclude certain “me too” evidence; defendant moved to admit various investigation documents and “me too” testimony.
The parties submitted motions in limine and unresolved exhibit/witness objections; the court held a hearing and issued rulings admitting most investigative and audit materials subject to redactions and excluding evidence of gambling and alleged use of prostitutes/strippers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of post-resignation investigation/audit/inventory evidence	Not relevant and unduly prejudicial; after-acquired defense not properly preserved	Relevant to damages, Plaintiff’s reason for resigning, and after-acquired evidence defense (preserved in answer)	Admissible (Investigation Motion GRANTED except gambling/sex-worker evidence excluded)
After-acquired evidence affirmative defense	Defendant didn’t include it in pretrial order; should be barred	Defense was pled in the answer so preserved	Defendant adequately preserved the defense in answer; evidence relevant to it admissible
Admission of "me too" evidence concerning other employees	Much of it should be excluded as irrelevant/prejudicial	Relevant to intent of same decisionmaker (Randy Carroll); admissible	"Me too" evidence GRANTED in part: categories plaintiff abandoned were excluded; evidence about other employees known to plaintiff involving same decisionmaker admissible; others excluded if unknown at resignation
Admission of evidence of Plaintiff’s gambling and alleged use of prostitutes/strippers	Highly prejudicial and irrelevant to claims/damages	Sought to use as after-acquired evidence and for credibility/damages	Excluded: court precluded any testimony or exhibits referencing Plaintiff’s gambling or alleged use of prostitutes/strippers (Plaintiff’s motion GRANTED as to gambling; similar exclusion applied to sex-worker allegations)

Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir. 2012) (explains after-acquired evidence doctrine and pleading-preservation principles)
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (permits "me too" coworker evidence concerning same decisionmaker to prove intent)
General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (district court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Haygood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 995 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir. 1993) (erroneous evidentiary rulings require affecting "substantial rights" to warrant reversal)