EDSON v. DREYER & REINBOLD INC.
1:15-cv-00861
S.D. Ind.May 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Karla Edson worked for Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc. (DRI) as an Appointment Coordinator for Volkswagen and Subaru service drives for >9 years; James Kizer was her supervisor.
- In April 2015 DRI restructured service drives and created service greeter positions; DRI transferred other employees and hired Julia Denham for the Volkswagen greeter role shortly after Edson’s on-the-job stroke (April 16, 2015).
- Edson returned to work with post-stroke impairments, intermittent FMLA leave and physical-therapy appointments; she used a wheeled “scooter” at work and was terminated after a meeting in which Kizer gestured toward the scooter.
- Edson sued under the ADA and FMLA alleging discrimination and retaliation; summary-judgment was denied and the claims proceeded to trial.
- Parties filed cross motions in limine over a range of evidentiary matters (untimely discovery documents, prior FMLA leave, EEOC charges, coworker performance testimony, lay causation testimony, expert testimony, and DRI’s financial condition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of documents produced after discovery deadline (DRI_000434–440) | Edson: exclude as untimely under Rule 37 | DRI: produced as supplementation under Rule 26(e); harmless and non-prejudicial | Denied — documents admissible; no bad faith and no shown prejudice |
| Evidence of Edson’s 2010 FMLA leave | Edson: irrelevant and unduly prejudicial (remote, different medical issue) | DRI: relevant to good-faith defense, shows practice re: FMLA and knowledge of process | Denied — evidence may be admissible; relevance asserted by DRI |
| References to EEOC charges, grievances, investigations | N/A (Edson did not oppose) | DRI: irrelevant, prejudicial, hearsay | Granted — exclude such EEOC/grievance evidence |
| Testimony from non-supervisory coworkers about Edson’s work performance | Edson: relevant to rebut employer’s stated reasons for termination | DRI: inadmissible opinion/hearsay, irrelevant per Ost | Denied — coworkers’ testimony about performance may be admitted |
| Lay-witness testimony on causation of Edson’s medical/psychological condition | Edson: N/A (does not oppose limitation) | DRI: causation requires expert testimony; lay testimony improper | Granted — lay witnesses may not testify as to medical causation; Edson may testify about her own symptoms/distress |
| Any expert testimony (undisclosed) | Edson: N/A (did not oppose limitation) | DRI: preclude experts for failure to disclose under Rule 26(a)(2) | Granted — undisclosed expert testimony barred |
| Evidence of DRI’s financial condition | Edson: relevant to punitive-damages calculation | DRI: irrelevant and prejudicial; should be precluded unless punitive damages supported | Granted in part — financial evidence generally excluded before jury; may be admitted after threshold showing and outside-jury hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2002) (district courts have broad discretion on evidentiary rulings and motions in limine)
- Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (motions in limine should be granted only when evidence is clearly inadmissible)
- Friedel v. City of Madison, 832 F.2d 965 (7th Cir. 1987) (failure to move to strike defective affidavits may constitute waiver)
- Ost v. W. Suburban Travelers Limousine, Inc., 88 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff’s own opinions about her performance typically insufficient to rebut employer’s reason)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (courts wary of presenting a defendant’s net worth to juries because of prejudice in punitive-damages assessment)
- Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene Products, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 220 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (financial evidence can distract jury from central issues and should be managed carefully)