2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-8-2002

Guider v. Patriot News

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket No. 01-1966

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Guider v. Patriot News" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 254.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/254
 NOT 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 NO. 01-1966 

 

 KATHY GUIDER, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 THE PATRIOT NEWS 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Civil No. 99-cv-00970) 

 District Judge: Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 April 4, 2002 

 Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and ALARC N*, Circuit Judges 

 

 (Filed April 8, 2002) 

 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

___________________ 

 * Hon. Arthur L. Alarc¢n, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 

 Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. SLOVITER, Circuit Judge. 

 This case involves various claims by Kathy Guider against The Patriot-News, her 

employer, claiming that it discriminated against her on the basis of race. Guider appeals 

the District Court’s grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of PatriotNews on Guider’s hostile work environment claim and also argues that two of the District 

Court’s evidentiary rulings were erroneous as a matter of law. 

 I. 

 BACKGROUND 

 Guider, an African-American woman, started working for Patriot-News as a 

temporary employee around October 1990. In March 1991, she became a full-time 

employee assigned to the Classified Department as a secretary. Several months later, she 

was promoted to the position of sales representative in that department, a position that she 

held until her termination. Guider’s immediate manager was Lori Rusinko. Rusinko’s 

supervisor was Diane Day and her supervisor was James Stephanak. 

 Guider alleges that starting shortly after her promotion, she was disparately treated 

in the Classified Department, specifically, that she was assigned a heavier workload than 

white employees, that she was assigned supervisory tasks not within her job description, 

that she was watched, followed and over-managed by Rusinko more frequently and that 

her tardiness was treated differently than similarly-situated white employees. She also 

alleges that another African-American employee, Rosalyn Holton, experienced similar 

differential treatment. 

 On October 10, 1997, Guider filed a PHRC complaint alleging racial 
discrimination and then, on January 27, 1998, she filed an amended PHRC complaint. 

She alleges that after she filed her amended complaint, the monitoring of her activities 

increased. 

 On May 8, 1998, Stephanak and Rusinko warned Guider that because of her 

tardiness on several recent occasions, she should not be late again in the future. On May 

15, 1998, Guider was terminated for allegedly taking too long of a lunch break. Guider 

claims she returned late from her lunch hour because of a medical emergency and that she 

had left word for Rusinko that she would be late returning from lunch for this reason. 

 On June 10, 1999, Guider filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, disparate treatment, 

hostile work environment, discriminatory termination, and retaliatory termination. After 

discovery was completed, Patriot-News filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which 

was granted on November 16, 2000 with respect to, inter alia, Guider’s claim of disparate 

treatment. The motion was, however, denied with respect to Guider’s hostile work 

environment claim and her discriminatory and retaliatory termination claims. On August 

1, 2000, Patriot-News filed a Motion In Limine seeking to exclude, on the ground of 

hearsay, testimony that Rusinko allegedly made a racially derogatory comment after 

Guider was terminated. On November 16, 2000, the District Court granted the motion 

excluding such testimony. 

 The trial began on March 12, 2001. At the close of evidence, the District Court 

granted a motion of Patriot-News for Judgment as a Matter of Law on, inter alia, Guider’s 

hostile work environment claim. The remaining claims went to the jury, which found for 

Patriot-News. On appeal, Guider challenges the District Court’s Judgment as a Matter of 

Law on her hostile work environment claim, the District Court’s decision not to admit 

testimony concerning an alleged racially derogatory comment by Rusinko, and the 

District Court’s decision to admit into evidence a statement by a previous employer of 

Guider. 

 II. 

 JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343. This 

court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. 

 This court has plenary review of a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 50. Northview Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 227 F.3d 

78 (3d Cir. 2000). In the employment discrimination context, the Supreme Court has said 

that 

 in entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the 

 court should review all of the evidence in the record. In doing 

 so, however, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in 

 favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility 

 determinations or weigh the evidence. Credibility 

 determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing 

 of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not 

 those of a judge. 

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (citations and 

quotation omitted). 

 This court reviews a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. 

Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep’t, 174 F.3d 95, 110 (3d Cir. 1999). Erroneous 

evidentiary rulings will be considered harmless if "it is highly probable that the District 

Court’s [evidentiary decision] did not affect [the party’s] substantial rights." Becker v. 

ARCO Chem. Co., 207 F.3d 176, 179. 

 III. 

 DISCUSSION 

 A. Judgment as a Matter of Law 

 This court has held that to establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff 

must establish, "(1) that he or she suffered intentional discrimination because of race; (2) 

the discrimination was pervasive and regular; (3) the discrimination detrimentally 

affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable 

person of the same race in that position; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior 

liability." Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1081 (3d Cir. 1996). In 

support of the JMOL, Patriot-News argues that Guider has failed to provide a rational 
basis from which a jury could conclude that Guider has established elements (1), (2) or 

(4) of a hostile environment claim. 

 Both parties acknowledge that to establish element (1), the burden is on Guider to 

show that race was a substantial factor in her harassment. From our review of the 

evidence, we agree with the District Court that Guider did not meet this burden. Having 

so found, we will affirm the District Court’s decision granting judgment as a matter of 

law in favor of Patriot-News on Guider’s hostile environment claim without reaching the 

question whether she established the other elements of a hostile environment claim. 

 B. Evidentiary Issues 

 1. Inadmissibility of Testimony Concerning Alleged Racially Derogatory 

 Statement 

 In an in limine motion, Patriot-News argued that testimony concerning an alleged 

derogatory statement by Rusinko namely, "After Kathy Guider, I won’t hire another 

black in my department" was inadmissible. Patriot-News argued, first, that such 

testimony was inadmissible hearsay or multiple hearsay and inadmissible under Federal 

Rule of Evidence 802. Second, it argued that, to the extent that there is testimony about 

this alleged statement that is not hearsay, such testimony should be excluded because its 

probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The District 

Court granted this motion. 

 Guider contends that she could have produced witnesses who could testify that 

they heard this comment from others. Even if she could have produced such witnesses, 

their testimony would not be admissible because it would be hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. 

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 

Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). A witness’s statement that another person told him or her what 

Rusinko said is an out-of-court statement offered to prove that Rusinko did say that. As 

such, it is a paradigmatic instance of hearsay. The District Court did not err and certainly 

did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit such testimony. 

 Further, because Guider does not claim to have a witness who could offer nonhearsay testimony about Rusinko’s statement, she cannot claim to have been harmed by 

the District Court’s decision to exclude any such evidence under Rule 403. Therefore, we 

cannot find that the District Court abused its discretion in its Rule 403 ruling. 

 2. Admissibility of Letter from Previous Employer 

 As evidence at trial, the District Court admitted a letter written to Guider by her 

previous employer, the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce (DOC), concerning an 

alleged race discrimination complaint filed against DOC on behalf of Guider. App. at 43. 

Guider admits that the existence of the alleged complaint is relevant, Fed. R. Evid. 401, 

but she denies on various grounds that the letter should be admissible. First, she argues 

that the letter was admitted to prove the contents of the alleged complaint against DOC 

without introducing into evidence the actual complaint and that this violates the best 

evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Second, she argues that the letter is inadmissible 

hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 803. Third, she argues that the letter is highly prejudicial and has 

no probative value and, thus, should be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court "must disregard any error . . . 

which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. The 

decision to admit this letter into evidence, even if it was in error, was not at all central t

the issues in this case. The testimony concerning this letter occupies less than two pages 

of the trial transcript. There is nothing to suggest that the decision to admit this letter i

evidence is at all likely to have affected the resolution of Guider’s wrongful termination 

claims, the only claims that remained when this case went to the jury. Even if the District 

Court did err in admitting this evidence, a question that we do not need to reach, this 

evidentiary decision is harmless. 

 IV. 

 CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons described herein, the judgment of the District Court will be 

affirmed. 

___________________ 

TO THE CLERK: 
 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 _____________________________ 

 Circuit Judge