575 F. App'x 306
5th Cir.2014Background
- Slovensky sued FEI and Fluor Corp. alleging Title VII gender discrimination, retaliation, termination, and failed reassignment.
- She was terminated in January 2010 as part of a workforce reduction; FEI used a biannual ranking system to evaluate employees for layoffs.
- Slovensky sought to exclude evidence that she was less qualified, less experienced, and ranked lower than peers; the district court overruled the motion in limine.
- FEI presented that layoff decisions were based on rankings and business needs, and that international positions Slovensky applied for never materialized.
- The jury found no gender-based failure to promote or layoff; Slovensky received a take-nothing judgment which she appealed.
- The appeal challenges the admissibility of comparative evidence and the district court’s evidentiary rulings under the standard of abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion admitting comparative evidence | Slovensky argues the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial | FEI contends ranking evidence is relevant to FEI's RIF process and non-gender理由 | No abuse; evidence admissible and probative |
| Whether Slovensky waived appellate challenge by not objecting at trial | Rule 103 preserves the issue despite trial objections omissions | Waiver applies for evidentiary issues not properly preserved | Even if waived, issue fails on merits |
| Whether the district court applied a per se rule in excluding evidence | Court used a per se rule contrary to Mendelsohn | Order did not show a per se blanket rule | No per se rule applied; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Girod v. United States, 646 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; harmless error)
- Umawa Oke Imo v. United States, 739 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2014) (substantial prejudice required for reversible error)
- Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2008) (deference to district court evidentiary rulings; broad discretion)
- Reminder v. Roadway Express, Inc., 215 F. App’x 481 (6th Cir. 2007) (consideration of plaintiff's qualifications in reassignment/layoff context)
- Davis v. Dep’t of Health & Hosp’s, 195 F. App’x 203 (5th Cir. 2006) (evidence of relative qualifications relevant to employment decisions)
- Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (Fifth Circuit discussion of evidentiary preservation)
- C.P. Interests, Inc. v. Cal. Pools, Inc., 238 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2001) (evidentiary rulings and admissibility standards)