Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02954/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02954-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1In the interest of conserving judicial resources, where a party is citing to

statements of fact, exhibits, or any other documents, the party shall always cite to the

corresponding document number as listed on the Court docket.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gregory S. Hawn, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Executive Jet Management, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2954-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike All References to the EEOC's

Determination in the McCrea Charges (Doc. 98), Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike All References

to the EEOC's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Charges (Doc. 99), Defendant Executive Jet

Management, Inc.'s (EJM) Motion to Strike Exhibits 38 and 40 to Plaintiff's Statement of

Facts (Doc. 108), and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 112). After careful consideration, the Court rules the following.

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiffs Michael R. Prince (Prince), Aric A. Aldrich (Aldrich), and Gregory S. Hawn

(Hawn)(collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) were all formerly employed as pilots for

Defendant EJM. Plaintiffs' terminations all came subsequent to allegations of sexual

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 117 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 2Although termed "Motion to Strike," Doc. 98 and Doc. 99 are requests to exclude

evidence related to the EEOC's determination on a charge of discrimination filed by a

former employee (Doc. 98) and evidence related to the dismissal of Plaintiff's Charges

of Discrimination filed with the EEOC (Doc. 99). 

- 2 -

harassment made by another EJM employee, flight attendant Robyn McCrea (McCrea). On

or about January 6, 2003, McCrea lodged a verbal complaint regarding conduct allegedly

engaged in by Aldrich during a two day training seminar on January 3rd and 4th of 2003.

Approximately one week later, McCrea sent EJM a 14 page letter documenting her claims

against all Plaintiffs. Therein, McCrea alleged that she was subject to hostile work

environment sexual harassment based on the alleged actions of all three plaintiffs. Thereafter,

EJM commenced an investigation into McCrea's allegations. In April 2003, at the conclusion

of EJM's investigation, the company terminated Plaintiffs for "inappropriate behavior".

However, while EJM's investigation was ongoing, McCrea filed a charge of discrimination

with the EEOC. The EEOC's investigation into the same allegations of sexual harassment

alleged by McCrea resulted in a determination against EJM just three months after Plaintiffs'

termination, resulting in a finding by the EEOC of a violation of Title VII by EJM for hostile

work environment sexual harassment. It is the EEOC's finding of EJM's responsibility for

Plaintiff's alleged sexual harassment of McCrea that Plaintiffs currently seek to exclude

based on the allegation that the determination might be prejudicial or immaterial to Plaintiffs'

present lawsuit. 

DISCUSSION2

I. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike All references to the EEOC's Determination in the

McCrea Charges (Doc. 98)

Plaintiffs seek to exclude all evidence of the results of the EEOC investigation into

Plaintiff's alleged inappropriate conduct toward McCrea which led to a finding of a violation

of Title VII by EJM for hostile work environment sexual harassment. The Ninth Circuit has

considered the admissibility of EEOC findings in Title VII cases and has concluded that

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 117 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 3This failure is primarily attributable to the lack of Plaintiffs' effort in making any

such showing in their motion.

 4

Plaintiffs do not however elaborate as to why making any reference to the

dismissal is irrelevant or prejudicial.

 5

The Court is assuming that Plaintiffs are not referring to the exhibits attached to

the Supporting Statement of Facts, and if they were, that they would have articulated their

individual grievances with each of the exhibits A-X.

- 3 -

"EEOC determination[s], prepared by professional investigators on behalf of an impartial

agency, [are] held to be a highly probative evaluation of an individual's discrimination

complaint" and are per se admissible. See Plummer v. W. Int'l Hotels Co., 656 F.2d 502, 505

(9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff's attempt at convincing the Court that it may be misled or confused

by the "McCrea Charge" or that its prejudicial value substantially outweighs its probative

value fails.3

 Furthermore, the EEOC's determination has probative value to support its

admissibility in that it substantiates the decision of EJM President to terminate Plaintiffs in

April 2003. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike All References to the EEOC's

Determination in the McCrea Charges (Doc. 98) is hereby DENIED.

II. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike All References to EEOC's Dismissal of Plaintiff's

Charges (Doc. 99)

Plaintiffs request that the Court strike any reference in Defendant's Motion for

Summary Judgment and Supporting Statement of Facts to the dismissal of Plaintiffs' EEOC

charges. Plaintiffs maintain that their charges were administratively closed when the EEOC

was unable to make a determination as to whether a statute had been violated. Therefore,

they contend that the agency's action is irrelevant, prejudicial, and should be struck from

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.4

 However, in their four sentence motion,

Plaintiffs fail to provide the Court with any pinpoint citations to Defendant's references to

the EEOC Dismissal in Defendant's 18 page Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 95) or

Defendant's 37 page Statement of Facts (Doc. 96) that Plaintiffs so vehemently oppose.5

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 117 Filed 05/09/07 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 6The "Right to Sue Notice" referenced in the Plaintiffs' Complaint is actually

entitled "Dismissal and Notice of Rights". 

 7

The EEOC dismissal for each of Plaintiffs' charges contained the following

explanation:

The EEOC issues the following determination:

Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information

obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the

respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other

issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.

- 4 -

Thus, the Court declines to comb through the filings to ascertain the extent of potential harm

the Plaintiffs are allegedly being exposed to by Defendant's reference to the EEOC dismissal.

Title VII explicitly requires Plaintiffs to have received a right to sue notice6

 from the

EEOC prior to filing suit against Defendant. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Thus, in order

for this Court to have jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs first had to receive their Right to Sue letter,

which in this case came in the form of a "Dismissal and Notice of Rights". Consequently,

the Court finds the dismissal letter relevant to the present matter. Further, the Court finds

that there is nothing prejudicial or confusing regarding the dismissal. Neither the reference

thereto nor the language therein confuses or misleads the Court.7

 Finally, to the best of the

Court's ability, the Court has ascertained that EJM references the EEOC's dismissal of

Plaintiffs' charges once in its Motion for Summary Judgment and once in its Statement of

Facts in what appears to be an effort at relating the complete procedural history of events

relevant to the present matter before the Court. Thus, the Court finds that the brevity of such

references does not prejudice the Plaintiffs. Consequently, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike All

References to the EEOC's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Charges (Doc. 99) is hereby DENIED.

...

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 117 Filed 05/09/07 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 8Defendant requests that the Court strike Exhibits 38 and 40 to Doc. 100,

Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary

Judgment, however, the exhibits are in fact attached to Doc. 101, Plaintiffs' Response

in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 101).

- 5 -

III. Defendant's Motion to Strike Exhibits 38 and 40 to Plaintiffs' Response in

Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment8

 (Doc. 108)

Defendant requests that the Court strike Exhibits 38 and 40 of Plaintiffs' Statement

of Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The exhibits consist

of a number of emails Plaintiffs allegedly received from EJM employees Brandi Waters and

Michelle Leihgeber. Defendant contends that the exhibits are both irrelevant and highly

prejudicial, as well as likely to confuse the issues to be addressed in the Motion for Summary

Judgment. The Defendant's argument is well taken.

 The exhibits are allegedly relied on to aid Plaintiffs in establishing the fourth prong

of the prima facie case of sex discrimination. Essentially, Plaintiffs contend that two women,

Brandi Waters and Michelle Leihgeber, engaged in similar conduct as Plaintiffs, but were

treated more favorably by EJM. Most notably, the Court finds that there is no evidence that

the documents were provided to EJM by Plaintiffs during EJM's lengthy investigation into

Plaintiffs' misconduct or any time prior to their termination. Thus, it is inconceivable to

conclude that EJM could have treated Plaintiffs differently to similarly situated individuals

(i.e. Plaintiffs) when they allegedly had no knowledge of the existence of the emails until

subsequent to the investigations and Plaintiffs' termination. Furthermore, the emails do not

establish that Brandi Waters and Michelle Leihgeber were "similarly situated" to Plaintiffs,

in that the evidence establishes that Plaintiffs in fact welcomed the emails they received from

Waters and Leihgeber.

Moreover, even if the Court were to find the exhibits relevant, given the nature and

quantity of the emails, the Court finds that their prejudicial value substantially outweighs

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 117 Filed 05/09/07 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 9Defendant filed the original version within the period originally granted by the

Court, however, Plaintiffs objected to Defendant's attempt at complying with a new Local

Rule. Therefore, Defendant later filed a red-lined version, which did not contain

substantive changes. The later version is the version to which the Defendants have filed

the Motion to Strike.

- 6 -

their probative value. Therefore, the Motion to Strike Exhibits 38 and 40 to Plaintiff's

Statement of Facts (Doc. 108) is hereby GRANTED.

IV. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 112)

Plaintiffs request that the Court strike Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment on the grounds that the deadline to submit dispositive motions expired previous

to Defendant filing its motion and Defendant sought neither consent nor leave of Court

previous to filing the motion.9

 The Court has considered Plaintiffs' argument and has

reviewed Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. Especially considering how

well versed the parties have revealed that they are in the Local Rules, the Court is surprised

at the extent that both parties have fallen short in their compliance with the rules.

Considering the fact that both parties have violated the Rules of Practice of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona, the Court is left to decide whether it should order

both parties to re-file their briefs in accordance with the rules. In an effort to conserve the

clients' resources, the Court has decided that it is in the best interests of the clients to

provide counsel with a warning that counsel for all parties are hereby advised that all

documents filed with this Court must comply with all Federal and Local Rules. Specifically,

parties are cautioned to adhere to the specific font size requirements (13 font-including

footnotes pursuant to Proposed LRCiv 7.1(b)(1)), page limitations, and to limit their

footnotes to no longer than 5 lines. LRCiv 7.2(e), and that all documents electronically filed

with this Court must be converted to PDF directly from a word processing program (i.e.

WordPerfect). It may not be created from the scanned image of a paper document. LRCiv

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 117 Filed 05/09/07 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 7 -

7.1(c). In the event the Court receives any further filings that do not comply with the rules,

the Court will strike the documents from the record. Furthermore, the parties are to comply

with the scheduling orders entered by this Court and prescribed by local and federal rules.

Consequently, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike All References

to the EEOC's Determination in the McCrea Charges (Doc. 98).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike All

References to the EEOC's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Charges (Doc. 99).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Strike Exhibits

38 and 40 to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 108).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's

Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 112).

DATED this 8th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 117 Filed 05/09/07 Page 7 of 7