41 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Jampa Gonpo, a Nepali worker, worked for Sonam Rinchen Lama's stonemasonry business seasonally from 2008 through 2015 and alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime for the limitations period Sept. 2013–Nov. 2015.
- Lama had no timekeeping records; Gonpo relied on his testimony and a co-worker's corroboration to invoke the Mt. Clemens burden‑shifting inference.
- Gonpo was fired in 2016 after Lama's teenage daughter accused him of rape; criminal charges followed and he was acquitted. Lama sought to introduce those rape allegations at trial to impeach motive.
- The district court excluded the rape‑allegation evidence as unduly prejudicial under Rule 403, and admitted testimony and a 2012 pocket calendar from co‑worker Jamyang Gyatso as routine/business practice evidence under Rule 406.
- A jury found for Gonpo; on appeal Lama challenged (1) exclusion of the rape‑allegation evidence, (2) admission of Gyatso's testimony and calendar, and (3) whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review some interlocutory evidentiary rulings given the notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of rape‑allegation evidence (Rule 404(b)/403) | Evidence was irrelevant; admitting motive is unnecessary when plaintiff entitled to relief. | Evidence was probative of Gonpo's motive to fabricate suit and thus admissible under 404(b). | Court affirmed exclusion: any probative value was tenuous and substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. |
| Admission of Gyatso's testimony/calendar as routine/business practice (Rule 406) | Testimony and calendar corroborated Gonpo and showed employer's regular pay and timekeeping practices. | Gyatso's evidence was only his personal experience and insufficient sampling/uniformity to establish employer routine. | Court ruled admission not an abuse of discretion: in a small company, multiple employee testimonies were adequate to show routine practice under Rule 406. |
| Relevance of 2012 pocket calendar to claims in 2013–2015 (Rule 401) | Calendar corroborated testimony that 2012 schedule matched 2013, so it was relevant. | Calendar fell outside the limitations period and was irrelevant. | Court held Rule 401's low threshold satisfied; calendar had tendency to make material facts more likely and was admissible. |
| Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory evidentiary rulings (notice of appeal) | N/A (Gonpo contested jurisdiction). | Lama argued his notice of appeal (which listed some orders and the final judgment) preserved review only of listed items. | Court exercised jurisdiction: applied retroactively amended Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(6) reasoning that listing the final judgment allows review of merged interlocutory orders absent an express limiting statement. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gentles, 619 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.) (404(b) framework and admissibility of prior‑act evidence)
- United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 217 (1st Cir.) (special relevance step under Rule 404(b) and deference to district court Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Gilbert, 229 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (deference to district court on Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.) (rare reversal of Rule 403 determinations)
- United States v. Newman, 982 F.2d 665 (1st Cir.) (sampling and uniformity factors for Rule 406 habit/routine evidence)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S.) (burden‑shifting when employer lacks adequate records in wage cases)
- United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113 (1st Cir.) (exclusion of ‘‘explosive’’ prior‑bad‑act evidence to prevent jury inflaming)
- Denault v. Ahern, 857 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (notice‑of‑appeal; risks of itemizing interlocutory orders)
- United States ex rel. Booker v. Pfizer, Inc., 847 F.3d 52 (1st Cir.) (notice specifying final judgment encompasses merged interlocutory orders)