Court: District Court, W.D. Washington; October 15, 2014; Federal District Court
Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Dkt. Nos. 41 and 49) are denied without prejudice, while Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine (Dkt. Nos. 44 and 50) are granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court grants exclusion of Plaintiffs’ alleged marijuana use and previous lawsuit, but denies the exclusion of Plaintiffs’ past criminal proceedings, all without prejudice.
Cory Ross Quinn, a veteran of the Washington Army National Guard, sues his former employer, Everett Safe Lock, Inc. (ESL), and its President, Gary Topp, for wrongful termination in violation of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Washington Minimum Wage Act (WMWA). Quinn worked for ESL from 2003, with deployments to Kuwait and Iraq, returning to ESL in October 2009. He was terminated in January 2010, shortly after raising concerns about unpaid breaks and driving time compensation to Topp via email.
Following his complaints, Quinn was reassigned to an Inside Service Technician position, which ESL later claimed was unnecessary due to economic difficulties, asserting that his termination was based on financial reasons rather than retaliation. ESL reported operating at a loss in 2009 and minimal income in 2010, contending that Quinn's concerns regarding his work conditions led to operational changes rather than his termination. The reasons for his transfer and termination are disputed by both parties.
Mr. Quinn filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) after disputing the economic reasons given for his termination. The DOL found that ESL violated federal law by terminating him and mandated that ESL re-employ him and pay back wages, which ESL refused. Consequently, Mr. Quinn initiated a lawsuit alleging violations of USERRA, FLSA, and WMWA. Following a denial of Mr. Quinn's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the case is set for a jury trial on October 22, 2014. Currently, the parties have submitted motions in limine regarding the admissibility of the DOL's findings.
Defendants seek to exclude evidence of the DOL's determination that ESL violated USERRA, arguing that it constitutes hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and is inadmissible. However, the Court recognizes that the DOL letter fits the public records exception under Rule 803(8), as it represents factual findings from an authorized investigation. While legal interpretations are not admissible under this exception, factual conclusions are, as demonstrated in relevant case law.
Defendants also argue the DOL's determination is irrelevant, claiming it is not binding on the Court. Nonetheless, the Court notes that Mr. Quinn's allegations hinge on inconsistencies in ESL's explanations for his termination, which raises concerns about potential unlawful motives. This makes the DOL's findings pertinent to the case.
Lastly, Defendants contend that the probative value of the DOL's letter is outweighed by its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury under Rule 403, arguing that jurors may simply accept the DOL's findings without critical evaluation and could be misled since the DOL did not consider ESL's financial situation at the time of its determination.
Plaintiff argues that any deficiencies in the Department of Labor's (DOL) investigation should affect the weight of the DOL's findings rather than their admissibility, a position the Court supports. Citing *Plummer v. Western International Hotels*, the Court states that defendants can present evidence challenging the EEOC findings, which may influence the jury's perception of the DOL determination. The defendants are permitted to argue that the DOL's conclusions were based on incomplete information, potentially mitigating any prejudicial impact on the jury. Plaintiff also asserts that ESL failed to provide requested financial documentation during the DOL investigation to substantiate its claims of financial hardship, which could undermine the credibility of ESL’s rationale for Plaintiff's termination. Consequently, the Court denies the defendants' Motions in Limine without prejudice.
Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine, he seeks to exclude inquiries about his alleged marijuana use, arguing it is irrelevant to his termination since ESL did not cite it as a reason. Defendants counter that this inquiry is pertinent to their defense concerning Plaintiff's mitigation of damages, alleging that his marijuana use contributed to his inability to secure employment. The Court acknowledges the relevance of this issue but also recognizes the potential for prejudice against Plaintiff. Despite this, it notes that Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff's marijuana use was known to most employers, limiting its relevance to his job applications outside of the Seattle Police Department.
The Court has granted the Plaintiff's motion to exclude references to his alleged marijuana use and to his prior lawsuit in Snohomish County Superior Court, both without prejudice. The exclusion is justified as the former is deemed irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury, while the latter might mislead the jury regarding the merits of the case due to the voluntary dismissal's context. Defendants argued that the legal fees incurred from the Snohomish County lawsuit hinder their ability to rehire the Plaintiff, but the Court believes alternate evidence could establish this financial condition without introducing potentially confusing evidence.
Conversely, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to exclude references to his past criminal proceedings. The Plaintiff contended that these proceedings, none of which resulted in recent convictions or crimes of dishonesty, were inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 609. However, the Court found that these rules do not apply since the Defendants may present this evidence to explain the Plaintiff's difficulty in finding reemployment rather than for impeachment. The Plaintiff did not provide arguments for exclusion under Rules 402 or 403.
In summary, Defendants’ motions in limine were denied, while the Plaintiff's motions were partially granted regarding marijuana use and the Snohomish lawsuit, but denied concerning past criminal proceedings. The Court also noted that the motions filed by the parties were duplicative and would be analyzed together.
