UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen Cook

v. Civil No. 06-cv-58-JD

CTC Communications Corp.

O R D E R

Karen Cook brings claims against her former employer, CTC

Communications Corporation, alleging that she was terminated in

retaliation for her support of other employees' rights under a

variety of federal and state laws. CTC filed a motion in limine

(document no. 90) to exclude plaintiff’s use of the term

“whistle-blower” at trial. Cook has filed an objection. 

Discussion

 CTC argues that Cook should be barred from referring to

herself as a “whistle-blower” because it is a legal term with a

well-defined meaning that is inapplicable to Cook. CTC also

argues that the term “whistle-blower” has a popular meaning that

will compel a sympathetic reaction by the jury. For both of

these reasons, CTC argues that the term is unfairly prejudicial

and should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Cook

counters that the use of this term is not “evidence” but rather a

word used to describe her situation, and therefore, there is no

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 131 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 3
2

evidentiary basis to exclude it. Cook argues that if the term is

considered evidence, it is not unfairly prejudicial because the

term is legally applicable to her.

CTC argues on page one of its motion in limine that to be an

actual "whistle-blower," one must bring a claim under New

Hampshire’s Whistleblowers' Protection Act, RSA ch. 275-E,

(Whistleblowers’ Act) or a federal equivalent. That does not

appear to be the case. The term has been used by the First

Circuit in retaliation claims. Maturi v. McLaughlin Research

Corp., 413 F.3d 166, 172 (1st Cir. 2005)("To encourage the filing

of qui tam actions and protect whistle-blowers - persons who

expose false or fraudulent claims, the [False Claims Act] imposes

liability on employers who retaliate against employees who

pursue, investigate, or contribute to an action exposing fraud

against the government."). As another example, in MoralesVallellanes v. Potter, 339 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 2003), a postal

employee who reported OSHA violations at the Postal Service and

was then subjected to harassment filed retaliation claims that

were construed as claims under Title VII and under his Collective

Bargaining Agreement. He was referred to as a "whistle-blower."

Id. at 13. In Flynn v. City of Boston, 140 F.3d 42, 46 (1st Cir.

1998), plaintiffs claimed that they were fired from their jobs

with the City of Boston in violation of the First Amendment in

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 131 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 3
3

retaliation for their opposition to their supervisor's efforts to

terminate employees of other political affiliations and to hire

political cronies and other unqualified people. The First

Circuit noted that "[t]he legal standard in this area is

notoriously fuzzy because the cases deal under the same head with

very different problems and 'justifications,' for example, the

disruptive employee, the whistle-blower who ignores channels, the

official who disagrees about policy, the contractor who offers

public political criticism of the agency, and so on." Id.

“Whistle-blower” is a descriptive term commonly used and

understood in a variety of legal and nonlegal contexts to refer

generally to a person who informs on somebody else. In the

context of this case, the use of the term will not be unfairly

prejudicial to the defendant.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion in limine

(document no. 90) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 2, 2007

cc: Heather M. Burns, Esquire

Samantha C. Halem, Esquire

Lauren S. Irwin, Esquire

Mary L. Marshall, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 131 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 3