Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01897/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01897-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kamran Madani and Abolfalz ) No. CIV 04-1897 PHX RCB 

Vaghef, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

BHVT Motors, Inc., )

)

Defendant. ) )

On September 10, 2004, Plaintiffs Kamran Madani and Abolfalz

Vaghef filed a complaint in this matter against BHVT Motors, Inc.

("BHVT"), Automotive Investment Group - Arizona, and VT, Inc. 

Complt. (doc. 1). On July 13, 2005, the Court granted the

parties' stipulation for a partial dismissal, dismissing all of

the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Automotive Investment

Group - Arizona and VT, Inc. Order (doc. 32). Thereafter, on

January 27, 2006, the Court granted BHVT's unopposed motion for

partial summary judgment, precluding Madani and Vaghef from

recovering any damages for past or future lost wages after March

8, 2001 and October 24, 2000, respectively. Order (doc. 44). The 

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 12
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

1 BHVT also moves to exclude the Determination Letters issued by

the EEOC, however, this matter is fully discussed and argued in a

separate motion filed by BHVT. Mot. in Lim. (doc. 51) at 7.

- 2 -

trial on the remaining claims against BHVT is scheduled to begin on

May 16, 2006. Order (doc. 50). Plaintiffs' remaining claims

include causes of action for race and national origin harassment,

and constructive discharge. Pretrial Order (doc. 50) at 2.

BHVT has filed two motions in limine seeking the exclusion of

certain testimony and evidence at trial. Mot. to Exclude EEOC

Letters (doc. 47); Mot. in Lim. (doc. 51). The Court has

considered the arguments presented and is now prepared to rule.

I. BHVT's Motion in Limine

 In its motion, BHVT requests that the Court preclude

Plaintiffs from presenting evidence on the following issues: (1)

the alleged discrimination or harassment by BHVT against persons of

other races and national origins; (2) the alleged racial or

national origin comments that Plaintiffs did not hear during their

employment at BHVT; (3) the alleged evidence and speculation

regarding alcohol or illegal drug use by BHVT's managers; (4) the

alleged evidence of criminal convictions of BHVT's managers that do

not meet the standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 609; (5) evidence

of other lawsuits against BHVT, companies owned by BHVT's owner,

and companies owned by BHVT's owner's son, and evidence of claims

dismissed in the present lawsuit; and (6) evidence concerning

claims of retaliation for which summary judgment has been granted.

Mot. in Lim. (doc. 51) at 2-7.1

 Plaintiffs, in their response, do

not object to the exclusion of the evidence described in sections

(3) through (6) of BHVT's motion. Resp. Mot. in Lim. (doc. 54) at

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 12
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

- 3 -

5-6. Thus, the Court shall grant BHVT's motion in relation to

those issues. However, the remaining two issues are analyzed

below.

First, BHVT moves to exclude evidence or testimony regarding

alleged discrimination or harassment of persons of races or

national origins other than Plaintiffs' race and national origin. 

Mot. in Lim. (doc. 51) at 2. Specifically, BHVT seeks to exclude

evidence and testimony regarding alleged comments made by former

managers about persons of other races and national origins,

including comments concerning a Bosnian salesperson, AfricanAmerica, Asian-American, Hispanic-American, and Indian-American

customers, an African-American baseball player, and an allegation

that a former manager knocked the turban off the head of an "East

Indian" customer and called him a derogatory name. Id. BHVT

argues that any testimony or evidence regarding these comments and

events would be irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, confusing, and

would mislead the jury. Id. at 2-3. Pursuant to Federal Rules of

Evidence 402 and 403, BHVT moves to have any such evidence and

testimony excluded. Id.

 In response, Plaintiffs argue that the contested comments

that BHVT seeks to exclude are highly probative of Plaintiffs'

hostile environment claim and strongly support Plaintiffs' punitive

damage claims. Resp. Mot. in Lim (doc. 54) at 2. In support of

their argument, Plaintiffs cite the Second Circuit case Cruz v.

Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560 (2nd Cir. 2000).

In Cruz, the court found that comments targeting persons of

races or national origins other than the claimant's were relevant

to establishing whether workplace harassment was severe or

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 12
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

2 BHVT cites cases that involve matters where the plaintiff

asserted hostile environment claims based solely on offensive

comments directed at third parties and those of a different race than

plaintiff. See Mot. in Lim. (doc. 51) at 2-3, citing Kortan v. State

of California, 5 F. Supp. 2d 843, 850 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Bainbridge v.

Loffredo Gardens, Inc., 378 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2004); Bermudez v. TRC

Holdings, Inc., 138 F.3d 1176, 1180 (7th Cir. 1998); Delon v.

McLaurin Parking Co., 367 F. Supp. 2d 893, 901-902 (M.D.N.C. 2005).

BHVT has not argued that Plaintiffs, in this case, base their claims

entirely on comments made to third parties. 

- 4 -

pervasive enough to be actionable. 202 F.3d at 570.

Determining whether workplace harassment was

severe or pervasive enough to be actionable

depends on the totality of the circumstances.

Because the crucial inquiry focuses on the nature

of the workplace environment as a whole, a

plaintiff who herself experiences discriminatory

harassment need not be the target of other

instances of hostility in order for those

incidents to support her claim. Nor must offensive

remarks or behavior be directed at individuals who

are members of the plaintiff's own protected

class. Remarks targeting members of other

minorities, for example, may contribute to the

overall hostility of the working environment for a

minority employee.

Id. (internal citations omitted). Consequently, the court

concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate on Cruz's hostile

work environment claim. Id. at 567. 

Although Cruz is a Second Circuit case, the Court finds it to

be on point with the circumstances of the case at bar. In

addition, the Ninth Circuit has stated that "if racial hostility

pervades a workplace, a plaintiff may establish a violation of

Title VII, even if such hostility was not directly targeted at the

plaintiff." McGinest v. GTE Service Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1117 (9th

Cir. 2004). BHVT also cites case law in its motion, however, it

fails to cite any authority that is directly on target with this

matter.2 Thus, the Court finds the testimony and evidence

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 12
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

- 5 -

regarding the alleged discrimination or harassment of persons of

races or national origins other than Plaintiffs' race and national

origin to be relevant to this matter. 

BHVT also argues that such evidence and testimony should be

excluded because it will be unduly prejudicial, confusing, and will

mislead the jury. Mot. in Lim (doc. 51) at 3. BHVT maintains that

allowing such evidence to be admitted at trial will lead to

numerous mini-trials, leading to an unnecessarily lengthy trial and

a waste of judicial resources. Id. at 3-4. 

According to Plaintiffs' deposition testimony, the contested

comments were made by five former employees of BHVT: Phil Kerr,

Brett Strauss, Dan Gooteau, Mike Westbrook, and an individual named

"Herbie." The Court notes that it does not know the titles of the

positions that Westbrook and Herbie held at BHVT, nor does it know

whether the title of "Desk Manager" rises to a level sufficient to

bind BHVT to comments made by an individual in such a position. In

any event, the Court does not believe that BHVT has sufficiently

shown the contested evidence to be unduly prejudicial, confusing,

or misleading. Accordingly, the Court shall deny BHVT's motion on

this issue. Should the evidence establish that any of these BHVT

employees could not be in a position to bind defendant, the court

will reconsider this determination.

Second, BHVT moves to exclude evidence or testimony regarding

alleged comments or discussions related to or involving alleged

harassment that Plaintiffs did not personally hear or witness

during their employment with BHVT. Mot. in Lim. (doc. 51) at 4. 

Specifically, BHVT seeks to exclude evidence and testimony about

comments other former employees of BHVT heard while employed there. 

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 5 of 12
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

- 6 -

Id. BHVT asserts that such evidence would be irrelevant, hearsay,

and unduly prejudicial. Id. at 4-5. Thus, pursuant to Federal

Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 802 and 805, BHVT requests that

admission of such evidence be barred. Id. at 5. 

In response, Plaintiffs argue that the contested comments

should be admitted because they are probative of Plaintiffs'

hostile work environment claim and material to the issue of BHVT's

liability for punitive damages. Resp. Mot. in Lim. (doc. 54) at 3-

5. Plaintiffs assert that, at trial, they intend to call five

former employees of BHVT to testify that both supervisors and

employees at BHVT routinely engaged in discriminatory name-calling

at work. Id. at 3. 

The Court is not convinced that such evidence would be

irrelevant, hearsay, or unduly prejudicial. Again, the Court does

not find the authority cited by BHVT in support of its argument to

be dispositive on this issue. Specifically, BHVT relies on two

cases where the plaintiffs were unaware of certain incidents of

harassment directed towards others. Mot. in Lim. (doc. 51) at 5,

citing Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir.

2000); Martinez v. Marin Sanitary Serv., 349 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1248

(N.D. Cal. 2004). In the case at bar, it is unclear to the Court

whether Plaintiffs were actually unaware of the comments or merely

did not witness them. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has stated that

"if racial hostility pervades a workplace, a plaintiff may

establish a violation of Title VII, even if such hostility was not

directly targeted at the plaintiff." McGinest v. GTE Service Corp.,

360 F.3d 1103, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court finds that BHVT has

failed to show that the contested evidence would be irrelevant,

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 6 of 12
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

3 In its motion, BHVT requests oral argument on this issue. Mot.

to Exclude EEOC Letters (doc. 47). Finding oral argument unnecessary,

the Court shall deny this request.

- 7 -

hearsay, and unduly prejudicial. Accordingly, the Court shall deny

BHVT's motion on this issue. 

II. BHVT's Motion to Exclude EEOC Letters of Determination

BHVT seeks to exclude the EEOC determinations as untrustworthy

under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) and as unduly prejudicial

under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Alternatively, BHVT asks for a

trustworthiness hearing to determine if the reports are admissible

under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C).3

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) allows into evidence

investigative reports, including both factual findings and

conclusions, that are made pursuant to authority granted by law. 

See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 154 (1988). The

EEOC is empowered to investigate and report claims of employment

discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Thus, their reports

are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) unless “the

sources of information or other circumstance indicate lack of

trustworthiness.” 

 In the Ninth Circuit, the trial court must begin with a

presumption that the disputed report is trustworthy. See Montiel

v. City of Los Angeles, 2 F.3d 335, 341 (9th Cir. 1993); Johnson v.

City of Pleasanton, 982 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir. 1992). The party

opposing introduction of the evidence must present enough negative

factors to persuade the court that the report should not be

admitted. Johnson, 982 F.2d at 352. This is because the court

assumes that public officials perform their duties properly without

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 7 of 12
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

- 8 -

motive or interest other than to submit accurate and fair reports. 

Id. at 352-53.

In general, BHVT questions the trustworthiness of the EEOC

letters because "[t]hey were issued after years of dilatory and

unexcused agency delay during which multiple documented requests

for basic factual information by [BHVT] were ignored, and that

delay has resulted in a fundamental deprivation of [BHVT's] basic

notice and due process rights." Mot. to Exclude EEOC Letters (doc.

47) at 1. BHVT maintains that the EEOC letters are untrustworthy,

because the EEOC purposefully concealed material information

concerning Plaintiffs' allegations against BHVT, including the

identity of the managers who allegedly harassed Plaintiffs and the

alleged witnesses who provided affidavits on which the EEOC relied

in making its determination. Id. at 14. "By the time the EEOC

finally disclosed the names of the managers who allegedly harassed

Plaintiffs, none of the individuals were employed by Bell Honda

and, consequently, Bell Honda's opportunity to investigate

Plaintiffs' allegations and later defend itself in this case was

materially prejudiced." Id. Moreover, BHVT asserts that the EEOC

letters are untrustworthy because, other than one interview with a

former General Manager, there is no evidence that any employees of

BHVT were ever interviewed. Id. at 14-15. BHVT also asserts that

the EEOC was biased against BHVT because it was involved in

litigation against multiple entities owned by the son of its owner

in a virtually identical lawsuit. Id. at 15. Finally, BHVT argues

that the EEOC letters are untrustworthy because they were not

timely issued, and contain hearsay-within-hearsay, along with other

evidentiary defects. Mot. to Exclude EEOC Letters (doc. 47) at 16. 

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 8 of 12
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

- 9 -

It notes that the EEOC letters were issued two and a half years

after Plaintiffs filed their charges of discrimination, and that

the EEOC letters contain statements about what Plaintiffs claim to

have told their managers. Id. BHVT asserts that each of these

arguments are noted as considerations in the advisory committee's

notes of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). Id. at 14-16.

In response, Plaintiffs oppose BHVT's motion, asserting that

the EEOC letters are trustworthy. They assert that the EEOC

letters expressly note that five former employees of Bell Honda

provided the EEOC with sworn statements substantiating that

Plaintiffs, and other racial minorities, were subjected to an

egregious pattern of discriminatory abuse. Resp. EEOC Letters

(doc. 52) at 3-4. In addition, they note that the EEOC gave BHVT

an additional opportunity to present evidence to undermine

Plaintiffs' allegations. Id. at 4. Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that

BHVT has provided no evidence that indicates that the EEOC was

biased towards Plaintiffs. Id.

According to BHVT, the EEOC conducted at least one interview

with a former General Manager at Bell Honda. Mot. to Exclude EEOC

Letters (doc. 47) at 14-15. In addition, the contested documents

state that the EEOC provided BHVT with a second opportunity to

provide relevant evidence, and, in any event, there existed a

sufficient basis on which to issue the findings of cause. Exbt. 17

(doc. 47) at 2, 4.

The Initial Letter of Determination was rescinded

based on an understanding that Bell Honda had

additional highly relevant evidence that they did

not have the opportunity to present. We were not

successful in this regard and Respondents provided

no important new evidence, and further, there was

a sufficient basis to issue the findings of cause.

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 9 of 12
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

- 10 -

Id. Therefore, although the Court is troubled by the events of the

EEOC investigation that preceded the creation of the contested

documents, this court finds that the EEOC letters meet the level of

trustworthiness required by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). A

hearing on the issue is not warranted. 

BHVT also seeks to exclude the EEOC letters under Federal Rule

of Evidence 403, finding its probative value substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Mot. to Exclude EEOC

Letters (doc. 47) at 17-19. BHVT argues that the EEOC letters

contain references to retaliation claims that were dismissed by the

Court and misrepresent the facts surrounding BHVT's participation

in the investigation. Id. at 17-18. Additionally, BHVT asserts

that the letters should be excluded because BHVT was denied a

"meaningful opportunity" to challenge the allegations contained in

the letters. Id. Lastly, BHVT argues that excluding the letters

will avoid requiring BHVT to litigate issues concerning the EEOC's

investigation. Id. at 19. 

In the Ninth Circuit, EEOC cause determinations have been

characterized as admissible per se in Title VII suits. AmanteaCabrera v. Potter, 279 F.3d 746, 749 (9th Cir. 2002); see also

Plummer v. Western Intern. Hotels Co., Inc., 656 F.2d 502, 505 (9th

Cir. 1981) (“An EEOC determination, prepared by professional

investigators on behalf of an impartial agency, has been held to be

a highly probative evaluation of an individual's discrimination

complaint.”). The Circuit has concluded that the probative nature

of an EEOC probable cause determination far outweighs any

prejudicial effect it may have on a jury. Gilchrist v. Jim Slemons

Imports, Inc., 803 F.2d 1488, 1500 (9th Cir. 1986). In Gilchrist,

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 10 of 12
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

- 11 -

the Court distinguished an EEOC letter of violation, which

concludes that a violation of the Title VII has occurred, from an

EEOC probable cause determination, which determines only that there

is probable cause to conclude that a violation has occurred. The

conclusive character of the former led the Gilchrist court to find

that EEOC letters of violation would not be per se admissible, but

would require a Fed. R. Evid. 403 balancing. Here, the EEOC issued 

determinations of probable cause and not a letter of violation. 

Therefore, under Ninth Circuit law, the report is per se

admissible. 

In sum, the court finds that neither Federal Rule of Evidence

803(8)(C) nor Federal Rule of Evidence 403 should bar admission of

the EEOC letters. However, although the documents will not be

excluded, the Court will grant BHVT some leeway at trial in showing

why the determinations are untrustworthy. If appropriate, the

court may issue a limiting instruction upon receipt of the

evidence.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that BHVT's Motion in Limine (doc. 51) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted in relation to

the issues defined in BHVT's motion as: (3) the alleged evidence

and speculation regarding alcohol or illegal drug use by BHVT's

managers; (4) the alleged evidence of criminal convictions of

BHVT's managers that do not meet the standard of Federal Rule of

Evidence 609; (5) evidence of other lawsuits against BHVT,

companies owned by BHVT's owner, and companies owned by BHVT's

owner's son, and evidence of claims dismissed in the present

lawsuit; and (6) evidence concerning claims of retaliation for

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 11 of 12
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

- 12 -

which summary judgment has been granted. However, it is denied in

regard to (1) the alleged discrimination or harassment by BHVT

against persons of other races and national origins; and (2) the

alleged racial or national origin comments that Plaintiffs did not

hear during their employment at Bell Honda.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the BHVT's Motion to Exclude EEOC

Letters of Determination (doc. 47) is DENIED in accordance with

this order. 

DATED this 27th day of April, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:04-cv-01897-RCB Document 56 Filed 04/27/06 Page 12 of 12