IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

Case No. 2:18-cv-544

Plaintiff,

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

v.

Magistrate Judge Jolson

CITY OF COLUMBUS, 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN 

ORDER IN LIMINE Defendant.

Plaintiff moved for an Order in Limine prohibiting Defendant from introducing evidence 

“in an ongoing investigation after her reassignment on March 13, 2017, to the Property Room, 

including the Chief’s recommendation of her termination and the Safety Director’s rejection of 

that recommendation, apart from the undisputed facts that she was fully reinstated and competently 

performed the duties assigned to her since.” Defendant generally does not oppose Plaintiff’s 

request.

Plaintiff identifies several reasons to have such evidence excluded, including the fact that 

this Court ordered summary judgment for Defendant on her procedural due process claim 

regarding that later phase of the ongoing investigation; consequently, Plaintiff argues, the manner 

and results of the investigation are no longer an issue. Defendant agrees.

Plaintiff had alleged that the City violated her right to due process when it temporarily 

reassigned her to the property room pending an investigation into allegations that she created a 

hostile work environment and violated EEO laws. However, the Court granted summary judgment 

in the City’s favor on Plaintiff’s procedural due Process claim. See OP. & ORDER (DOC #48 at 

#5319). The Court determined that “[Plaintiff’s] assignment to the property room pending 

investigation and subsequent hearing cannot be said to amount to a situation lacking process” and 

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 81 Filed: 05/18/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 5494
2

that “the City has strong administrative, fiscal, and efficacy related interests in moving police 

without delay”. (Id.) Thus, Defendant has also moved, in Limine for a similar Order asking that 

Plaintiff be prohibited from making any inquiry, comment, or argument regarding the City’s 

actions after Plaintiff was temporarily reassigned to the property room. This would include any 

evidence, testimony, mention, or argument at trial, facts, opinions, or conclusions developed

regarding the investigation, disciplinary charges, hearing and disposition of disciplinary charges 

against Plaintiff. Any evidence pertaining to these allegations is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and 

confusing to the jury.

While Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request for an Order prohibiting it from 

offering evidence of the investigation, disciplinary charges and disposition of disciplinary charges 

against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has agreed, in turn, not to offer evidence of the investigation, disciplinary 

charges, and disposition of disciplinary charges against any alleged similarly situated employee. 

The parties have agreed that the only issue for trial is whether the City discriminated and retaliated 

against Plaintiff when it temporarily reassigned her to the property room pending an investigation 

that she created a hostile work environment and violated EEO laws. The Parties have filed 

stipulations on whether alleged similarly situated employees were reassigned pending an EEO 

investigation and the measures the City took to protect employees that filed EEO complaints 

during the investigation. Thus, Defendants have moved for an Order in Limine that Plaintiff should 

likewise be prohibited from introducing, directly or indirectly, through evidence, testimony, 

mention, or argument at trial, facts, opinions, or conclusions developed related to any 

investigation, disciplinary charge or disposition of disciplinary charge against any employee of the 

Columbus Division of Police outside of the stipulations. Any evidence pertaining to these 

allegations is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and confusing to the jury.

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 81 Filed: 05/18/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 5495
3

Defendant generally does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion for an Order in Limine. Alas, 

Defendant requests an even playing field prohibiting Plaintiff from offering the same evidence against 

any alleged similarly situated employee that she requests be excluded from introduction against her. 

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Paul M. Bernhart

Westley M. Phillips (0077728)

Susan E. Williams (0073375)

Paul M. Bernhart (0079543)

Assistant City Attorneys

CITY OF COLUMBUS, DEPARTMENT OF LAW

ZACH KLEIN, CITY ATTORNEY

77 North Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 645-7385 / (614) 645-6949 (fax)

wmphillips@columbus.gov

sewilliams@columbus.gov

pmbernhart@columbus.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 18, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court by using this Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of this electronic filing 

to all counsel of record in this matter.

/s/ Paul M. Bernhart

Paul M. Bernhart (0079543)

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 81 Filed: 05/18/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 5496