Mezu v. Morgan State University, 1:09-cv-02855

The actions were consolidated for trial and set to begin June 2, 2014; multiple motions in limine were filed regarding Dr. Colin Linsley, FMLA interference, spoliation of evidence, Olachi Mezu’s marriage, and a summary judgment on a §1981 claim against Hubbard.
Plaintiff Mezu asserts FMLA interference and retaliation claims in the 2009 action and Title VII retaliation claims bridging both the 2009 and 2011 actions; MSU defends and moves to exclude expert testimony and seeks summary judgment on certain claims.
Plaintiff abandoned the course overload allegations, prompting a separate §1981 summary judgment motion against Hubbard, which the court grants.
The court notes the remaining viable claims are Mezu’s FMLA interference and retaliation (2009 action) and Title VII retaliation (bridging 2009/2011 actions).
The court procedurally resolves numerous limine motions, including limiting evidence on FMLA requests of other employees, admissibility of Olachi’s marriage and Dr. Conway testimony, and grants/denies limited relief as described in the memorandum and order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mezu’s FMLA interference liability should be resolved at summary judgment	Mezu seeks streamlining; liability established, remaining issue is damages	Disputes as to the elements preclude summary judgment on liability	Denied; triable issues remain on liability
Whether spoliation sanctions are warranted for missing/withheld documents	Defendants withheld/failed to preserve relevant documents	No spoliation; documents produced or not material	Granted in part and denied in part; limited sanctions for missing discovery items, no instruction for missing medical records
Whether Hubbard is entitled to summary judgment on the §1981 claim	§1981 claim remains broader than course overloads	Abandonment of course overloads narrows the claim to a non-actionable scope	Granted
Whether evidence on Olachi’s marriage and Dr. Conway’s testimony is admissible	Evidence may be probative of motive/credibility	Some evidence irrelevant to decision at time; limits apply	Partially granted; Conway testimony permitted on certification adequacy; others excluded

Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (FMLA prejudice required for relief)
Hoge v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 384 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2004) (Elements of FMLA interference)