Herbert v. Architect of the Capitol
920 F. Supp. 2d 33
D.D.C.2013Background
- Herbert, African American painter at the House of Representatives Paint Shop, employed 2004–2011 under the Architect of the Capitol (AOC).
- Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 alleging Title VII discrimination and retaliation and a CAA claim against the AOC.
- The case proceeded to Counts II (retaliation) and III (hostile work environment) and was at pretrial stage with motions in limine pending.
- The AOC sought broad evidentiary relief including evidence of criminal history, internal investigations, disciplinary records, and jury size; Plaintiff sought to bar or limit several categories of such evidence.
- The court denied Plaintiff’s motion in part and granted-in-part and denied-in-part the AOC’s motion in part, set a nine-member jury, and resolved several evidentiary issues for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of criminal conviction to support emotional distress claim | Herbert seeks to exclude as prejudicial; argues conviction not relevant to damages. | Evidence relevant to emotional distress and as potential impeachment; should be allowed with limits. | Granted in part; cross-examination allowed with limitations to address emotional distress; not full introduction of all criminal-history evidence. |
| Admissibility of Chief Clerk's sexual-harassment testimony against Plaintiff | Ms. Good’s testimony is improper character evidence to prove conduct. | Impeachment of Norwood’s accusations by Ms. Good’s testimony is permissible under 404(b). | Denied; testimony barred as 404(b) character evidence; may still pursue impeachment via Norwood’s testimony. |
| Admissibility of the Tonda Cave investigation evidence | Investigation demonstrates hostile environment; relevant to liability. | Litigation-induced stress; should be limited or excluded. | Denied; evidence admitted with limitation that testimony reflects Plaintiff’s contemporaneous perceptions; not allowed to rely on later discovery for scope. |
| Admissibility of evidence about discipline of Calogero DiPasquale | Disparity in discipline supports hostile environment claim. | Evidence bears on retaliatory/ discriminatory intent; admissible. | Denied in part or deferred; court declines to rule on specific admissibility due to lack of developed grounds; may revisit. |
| Whether the court should seat twelve jurors | Twelve jurors preferable for accuracy and diversity. | Jury management concerns; twelve not necessary. | Denied; court seated nine jurors (Rule 48(a) governs minimum/maximum); no alternate jurors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (motions in limine grounded in court’s trial-management authority)
- Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064 (3d Cir. 1990) (motions in limine purpose to narrow evidentiary issues)
- Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2008) (trial-court discretion in evidentiary rulings; limiting pretrial decisions)
- United States v. Valencia, 826 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1987) (threshold question of whether a ruling in limine is appropriate)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (standard for hostile environment evidence and perception of conduct)
- United States v. Layton, 720 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1983) (context for trial evidentiary decisions)