Defendants argue that the co-worker also heard testimony concerning an alleged affair Mr. Clark had. Support in the record for this contention is weak. Assuming, however, that Defendants are correct, it is unlikely they suffered any prejudice. Although the co-worker's proposed testimony dealt with the alleged affair, the testifying witness merely admitted that she had never personally seen any signs of an affair. Thus, it is difficult to see how the co-worker would have altered her testimony as a result of her violating the sequestration order.
Defendants also argue that the co-worker was an improper rebuttal witness.
The district court appears, however, to have accepted her as a rebuttal witness, and we will not overturn this decision absent an abuse of discretion. We find no evidence indicating that such an abuse occurred. As a result her testimony was potentially very important to Ms. Burks's case. Thus, Ms. Burks is entitled to a new trial. In her interrogatories, Ms. Burks asked Defendants to identify all persons over forty years of age who were employed as managers or supervisors for the last ten years.