IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LATARA HARRIS, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CASE NO. 3:10-cv-49-MCR-EMT

*

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, *

INC. a/k/a AT&T, *

*

Defendant. *

*

PLAINTIFF LATARA HARRIS'S

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

COMES NOW Plaintiff Latara Harris and objects to each of the Defendant's Motions in Limine 

as follows:1

A: OTHER EMPLOYEES' DISCIPLINE

In order to prove retaliation, Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation which 

includes demonstrating that Plaintiff engaged in protected activity. Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d. 961, 

970, 974 (11th Cir. 2008).

In addition, even assuming the Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the Defendant may rebut 

this showing by evidence that its actions were based on a legitimate explanation. Plaintiff must rebut 

this showing by establishing pretext. Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d. 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 

2007); Corbitt v. Home Depot USA, 589 F.3d. 1136 (11th Cir. 2009).

Defendant's motion seeks to exclude testimony regarding three other employee disciplinerelated incidents. The first incident concerns employee Kerry Williams. This incident is described in 

detail in paragraph 50 of Plaintiff's statement of facts in opposition to summary judgment. The 

1 To avoid unnecessary repetition and redundant filing, Plaintiff makes some factual references to her 

summary judgment opposition filing.

1

Case 3:10-cv-00049-MCR-EMT Document 111 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 5
discipine of Williams should not be excluded from evidence because it is necessary to establish the two 

elements of proof described above: protected activity and pretext. 

Williams' discipline formed part of the basis for the Plaintiff's initial complaint to her regional 

manager concerning workplace discrimination. Paragraph 21. Without this evidence, Plaintiff would 

not have a key part of the evidence concerning why she complained about racial mistreatment, her 

protected activity, and that her protected activity was founded on a legitimate belief of racial 

discrimination. 

In addition, Williams' discipline is relevant to demonstrate pretext. As discussed in the abovereferenced summary judgment opposition, as well as pages 5, 6 and 7 of Plaintiff's brief in opposition

to summary judgment, Defendant admittedly gave Williams light discipline because of her subjective 

intent in using the racial slur. In other words, Defendant gave her light discipline because Williams

said 'she did not mean it.' The same is true for two other AT&T disciplinary incidents.2

 However, with 

respect to Plaintiff, even though she was also disciplined for a verbal incident, her subjective intentions 

were not important.3 Therefore, while all employees are subject to the same zero tolerance policy 

regarding such statements, Plaintiff was judged under a harsher standard. This is highly relevant to 

establish pretext. Plaintiff is not suggesting that Williams or other employees are comparators. Rather, 

Plaintiff is offering this evidence as circumstantial evidence of pretext through different treatment. Not 

only was the discipline different, but the investigation of the employees was also different. While 

Plaintiff underwent a large-scale asset protection investigation for telling another employee 'don't give 

yourself a heart attack,' the other employees underwent a brief informal investigation. Plaintiff's 

investigation took approximately one month and resulted in skipped discipline steps. The other 

2 Paragraphs 51 and 52.

3 A description of the Plaintiff's verbal exchange is contained in paragraph 34 of Plaintiff's statement 

of facts. 

2

Case 3:10-cv-00049-MCR-EMT Document 111 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 5
employees had their discipline resolved quickly, and in the case of Williams, not even enforced.4

 See, 

Corbitt. 

The other employee incidents are described in paragraphs 51 and 52 of Plaintiff's statement of 

facts in opposition to summary judgment. Evidence regarding both is relevant and admissable to 

demonstrate pretext, for the same reasons described above.5 

 Finally, Plaintiff opposses any exclusion of evidence regarding other employees of Defendant 

that complained of retaliation and were terminated, as said evidence supports Plaintiff's claim of 

punitive damages by establishing a pattern of retaliatory conduct. 

B: OTHER EVENTS

This motion is inherently overbroad, and essentially seeks to exclude evidence which may not 

be relevant to Plaintiff's claims. With respect to a general timeline, Plaintiff will stipulate to not attempt 

to introduce any evidence concerning events which occurred before or after the events complained of in

her Amended Complaint, which began in July, 2008, and concludes after her two-day suspension 

(including it's appeal), other than her ongoing treatment and mental anguish resulting from the 

retaliation. Furthermore, Plaintiff will stipulate to redact any documentary reference to the same in the 

exhibits identified by Defendant, but submits that the balance of information contained in each of those 

exhibits is relevant to establish pretext, as discussed in section A above. Plaintiff also opposses any 

motion to exclude the secret investigations conducted by Defendant, or their investigator Danny Lee, 

during this same time frame. This evidence is directly relevant to establish the Defendant's pretext.

4 Paragraphs 34, 35, 50, 51 and 52.

5 Defendant also argues that the discipline should not be admissible because of the different Call 

Center supervisors involved with the other incidents. However, it is undisputed that Terrie Crawford 

oversaw each of these incidents and was consulted in the final decisions for each, as well as the 

Human Resource consultant Shannel Sykes. In addition, even different supervisors would not 

explaint such a deviation form Defendant's 'Zero-tolerance' policy.

3

Case 3:10-cv-00049-MCR-EMT Document 111 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 5
C: “NON-ADVERSE” ACTIONS

Plaintiff will stipulate to not attempt to introduce any evidence concerning adverse actions that 

occurred subsequent to her suspension. However, Plaintiff opposes the balance of this motion. 

Apparently, the motion seeks to limit Plaintiff's testimony to evidence of the two-day suspension, 

claiming that Plaintiff suffered no damages supporting a claim of retaliation other than the two-day 

suspension. This is simply not the case. As discussed in detail on pages 2, 3 and 4 of Plaintiff's brief in 

opposition to summary judgment, as well as her amended complaint, the Plaintiff's claim of retaliation

includes a series of employee discipline events which occurred following her July, 2008, letter to Terrie 

Crawford complaining of racial discrimination. The two-day suspension, also referenced as the asset 

protection investigation, was the last of a series of workplace harassment. Each of these incidents form 

part of the Plaintiff's retaliation claim. Plaintiff does not have to suffer economic harm. The adverse 

actions may include a wide variety of actions that may harm the employee in some regard. Wyatt v. 

City of Boston, 35 F.3d. 13, 15-16 (1st Cir. 1994). Because this case is subject to the new Burlington 

standard, the adverse actions requirement has been “decidedly more relaxed.” Crawford v. Carroll, 529 

F.3d. 961 (11th Cir. 2008). As a result, each of the disciplinary incidents occurring between the July 

2008 initial complaint and the two-day suspension are admissible to establish the pattern of retaliation 

and retaliation attempts by the Defendant. Plaintiff also opposses any motion to exclude the secret 

investigations conducted by Defendant, or their investigator Danny Lee, during this same time frame. 

This evidence is directly relevant to establish the Defendant's pretext.

D: FCHR SUBMISSION

As discussed during oral argument, Plaintiff will stipulate that the FCHR findings are not 

admissible, but Plaintiff submits that the Defendant's submission to the FCHR is admissible. 

Specifically, Plaintiff submits that the Defendant's FCHR submission (its position statement) is 

submissible because it demonstrates inconsistency in its explanations regarding the disciplinary actions 

4

Case 3:10-cv-00049-MCR-EMT Document 111 Filed 08/20/12 Page 4 of 5
taken against Plaintiff. These actions form part of the basis of Plaintiff's retaliation claim. Such 

inconsistencies are directly relevant to establish pretext. Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 

1598 (11th Cir. 1998). 

Plaintiff also opposes any exclusion of her own FCHR charges, which were submitted during 

the series of retaliatory discipline she underwent following her intial complaint in July, 2008. These are 

relevant to demonstrate her protected activity, her unwarranted discipline, her reaction to the retaliation 

as well as Defendant's retaliatory reaction. They are also relevant to establish the Defendant's pretext.

E: EXPERT TESTIMONY AND RECORDS OF MELANIE FERGUSON

As discussed during oral argument, Plaintiff will stipulate to not introduce testimony regarding 

causation for Dr. Ferguson, and limit her testimony to treatment as instructed by the Court. With 

respect to her treatment records, Plaintiff submits that these are relevant and admissible. Any alleged 

misstatement made by Plaintiff concerning workplace events may be used against the Plaintiff for 

impeachment and considered by the jury, but her records are directly relevant to the treatment received, 

and information related to Dr. Ferguson by the Plaintiff as contained in the records is admissable to 

establish the complaints upon which Plaintiff was diagnosed and treated.

/s/Steven L. Terry

Attorney for Plaintiff

1409-B Government Street

Mobile, AL 36604

251.432.4800

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on this 20th day of August 2012 that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

served using the CM/ECF system which will electronically notify all counsel of record.

/s/Steven L. Terry

5

Case 3:10-cv-00049-MCR-EMT Document 111 Filed 08/20/12 Page 5 of 5