Jo Yochum v. FJW Investment Inc
16-3784
| 3rd Cir. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Yochum sued FJW (Bath Fitter of Pittsburgh), its owners (the Luccis), PTP, and an individual, alleging Title VII and PHRA religious discrimination and hostile work environment arising from proselytizing "training" and termination/constructive discharge.
- She amended to drop employment-discrimination claims against PTP and proceeded against PTP on aiding-and-abetting; later sought leave to reassert a Title VII employment claim against PTP as her employer.
- After ~23 months of discovery and pretrial filings, the District Court denied leave to file a second amended complaint to add PTP as an employer (motion filed late).
- Before trial the District Court granted FJW’s motions in limine excluding IRS and Unemployment Compensation agency determinations about Yochum’s employment status; Yochum reserved but did not press the IRS evidence at trial.
- The court trifurcated the trial to decide first whether Yochum was an employee or independent contractor for Title VII; the jury found she was an independent contractor, and final judgment for FJW followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of leave to amend to add PTP as employer | Yochum argued she should be allowed to reassert PTP as her employer for Title VII | Defendants argued the motion was unduly delayed and would prejudice them by reopening discovery and dispositive motion practice | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion due to undue delay and substantial prejudice |
| Exclusion of Unemployment Compensation determination | Yochum argued the agency finding on employment status was admissible/relevant | Defendants argued the evidence would confuse jury and invite undue weight on agency finding | Affirmed: excluded under FRE 403 as prejudicial/confusing; waiver of preclusion argument raised only on appeal |
| Exclusion of IRS determination letter | Yochum sought to admit IRS letter showing employee status (2004–2007) | Defendants moved to exclude; Yochum told court she did not intend to introduce it and did not press it at trial | Affirmed: waived by failure to object/preserve at trial; no reconsideration was sought |
| Trifurcation of trial on employee status | Yochum argued trifurcation prejudiced her case | Defendants note trifurcation was appropriate and unopposed | Affirmed: issue waived on appeal because Yochum did not object below |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence re: independent contractor | Yochum contended verdict was against weight of evidence | Defendants relied on jury verdict and lack of post-verdict motions | Not reached on merits: review barred because Yochum did not move under Rule 50 or Rule 59; claim forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2006) (Rule 15 liberal amendment policy)
- Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (grounds to deny leave: undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, futility)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (prejudice is touchstone in amendment decisions)
- Moyer v. United Dominion Indus., 473 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 295 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2002) (scope of appellate review for discretionary rulings)
- Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1992) (failure to object at trial waives appellate review)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (Rule 50 preservation requirement for sufficiency challenges)
- Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 1999) (Rule 50 timing and effect on appellate review)