IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JEAN-ROBERT CADET, : Case No. C-1-01-131

Magistrate Judge Hogan

Plaintiff, :

vs. : 

: PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN

MADEIRA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

 et al., : MOTION IN LIMINE 

Defendants. :

MOTION

Defendants Madeira City School District Board of Education, Michele W.

Hummel, Chris J. Mate and Paul W. Imhoff filed on September 16, 2003, a motion to

exclude from evidence testimony or exhibits concerning allegations of harassment of

non-parties and communications from parents concerning Plaintiff’s resignation. For the

following reasons, Defendants’ motion should be denied.

Contrary to Defendants’ contentions, evidence of racial harassment suffered by

non-parties, such as student Caldwell Wright, is relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff

was subject to unwelcome harassment. Such evidence is indicative not only of the

general racial intolerance prevalent at Madeira Junior-Senior High School during the

time that Plaintiff taught and Caldwell Wright attended school there but demonstrates as

well the routine practice employed by school administrators in dealing with racial

harassment. Fed. R. Evid. 406 states that “[e]vidence of . . . the routine practice of an

organization . . . is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a

particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.” 

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 58 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 1 of 4
2

The court in Miller v. Poretsky, 595 F.2d 780, 790-91 (D.C. Cir. 1978), also

recognized specifically that acts of discrimination against non-parties may be admissible

to show a pattern of discrimination. Likewise, the court in Minority Employees at NASA

v. Beggs, 723 F.2d 958, 962 (D.C. Cir. 1983), found that comparative information about

an employer’s treatment of minorities is relevant evidence in an individual’s

discrimination claim against that employer. 

The testimony of Caldwell Wright is particularly relevant in this case because of

the circumstances under which he related the incidences of racial harassment he

experienced while a student at Madeira and the administration’s response to those

reports. After Plaintiff’s resignation, Defendant Mate summoned Mr. Wright to question

him with regard to Plaintiff’s claims that students were likewise being racially harassed

by other students. Mr. Wright’s testimony about his reports to the administration of

incidences of racial harassment and the administration’s refusal to take appropriate

action is relevant as comparative information about Madeira’s treatment of another

minority individual and because it shows that Mssrs. Mate and Imhoff’s response to

Plaintiff’s reports of racial harassment was in conformity with their routine practice. See

Minority Employees at NASA, 723 F.2d at 962. Thus, the administration’s response to

the reports by Mr. Wright (a non-party) of racial harassment is admissible to show the

pattern of discrimination engaged in by Defendants. See Miller, 595 F.2d at 790-91. 

In addition, Mr. Wright’s testimony also bears upon Defendant Mate’s honesty

and credibility. Mr. Mate in his deposition attributed certain statements to Mr. Wright

that were allegedly made during the interview described above. Mr. Wright vehemently

denies making the comments that Defendant Mate attributed to him. 

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 58 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 2 of 4
3

With regard to communications by “various parents who were concerned about

plaintiff’s resignation,” the probative value of such evidence is not outweighed by any

danger of unfair prejudice and is clearly relevant to the issues presented by Plaintiff’s

claims. Defendants claim that they received a multitude of complaints about Plaintiff

and that he had “issues” with regard to his teaching abilities. Defendants will likely

attempt to portray Plaintiff as an inferior teacher disliked by all. Testimony by parents

who were concerned about his resignation is relevant for several reasons. If Defendants

are permitted to introduce evidence of the alleged complaints they received about

Plaintiff, Plaintiff must be permitted to rebut that evidence with communications from

parents or students who were pleased with his performance and who genuinely liked

him. In addition, many of those parents expressed concern about racial intolerance in

Madeira and the school district’s perceived attempts to avoid addressing that issue. 

Furthermore, given the fact that none of the parents were deposed in this case,

Defendants likely have no knowledge as to the source of those parents’ information and

whether that information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’ affirmative

defenses. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion in Limine should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

 s/W. Kelly Lundrigan 

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 58 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 3 of 4
4

W. Kelly Lundrigan (0059211)

Rhonda S. Frey (0067343)

MANLEY BURKE

225 West Court Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(513) 721-5525

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’

Motion in Limine is being sent via electronic notification, on the 22nd day of September,

2003, to all parties entitled to service under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

 s/W. Kelly Lundrigan 

 

W. Kelly Lundrigan

SERVICE LIST:

R. Gary Winters

Bernard W. Wharton

McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin

632 Vine Street, Suite 900

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2442

n:\Clients\Cadet\Trial\Motion in limine.RSF

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 58 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 4 of 4