Opinion ID: 7263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pattern or Practice Evidence

Text: Next Trial Plaintiffs complain of the exclusion of certain witnesses. A trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Jon-T Chems., Inc. v. Freeport Chem. Co., 704 F.2d 1412, 1417 (5th Cir.1983). When the admissibility determination necessarily involves a legal 18 Trial Plaintiffs improperly rely on Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Refining Corp., 495 F.2d 437, 445 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1033, 95 S.Ct. 515, 42 L.Ed.2d 308 (1974), for their contention that a higher standard should be required of Appellees after the burden of proof shifts. The Price Waterhouse Court specifically rejected the idea that upon the shifting of the burden the employer should be required to show non-discrimination by clear and convincing evidence rather than be the usual preponderance of the evidence standard. See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 252-54, 109 S.Ct. at 1792-93. 21 decision, this Court should consider the validity of the underlying legal analysis. See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 909-18 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979); United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 1003, 79 L.Ed.2d 235 (1984). We will not reverse a district court's evidentiary rulings unless they are erroneous and substantial prejudice results. The burden of proving substantial prejudice lies with the party asserting error. FDIC v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d at 1318-19.
Trial Plaintiffs assert that the district court abused his discretion by excluding ten19 anecdotal witnesses relating to their pattern or practice claim. We must start with the district court's ruling on the issue. On anecdotal evidence, in my judgment the use of witnesses who are plaintiffs in this litigation and whose case yet has to be tried because they're not being tried at this time ... to allow those persons to testify in this case with regard to their own anecdotal experiences ... the merit of doing that or the probative value of allowing that is outweighed by the overwhelming difficulties that that would cause in efficiently providing a trial to these six plaintiffs and fairly permitting each side to present their cases with regard to these six plaintiffs during the two-week period that has been allowed for trial. .... 19 At trial, Trial Plaintiffs complained of the exclusion of 17 witnesses, however, according to Trial Plaintiffs, four of the witnesses ultimately testified. Of the remaining 13 witnesses, Trial Plaintiffs briefed their arguments as to only ten witnesses, and therefore have waived their objections to the exclusion of the remaining three witnesses. 22 However, in the event that anecdotal evidence is offered with regard to other employees—that is, supervisors, the decision-makers that are involved with respect to these six plaintiffs at times and places that proximately relate to the claims of any of these six plaintiffs on trial—then I do not preclude the plaintiffs from making that type of offer or tender. But other anecdotal evidence that would be unrelated to the cases now on trial I'm going to rule would be excluded, given the fact that we've got a company here with many thousands of employees, as I understand it. .... And when you start going to anecdotal evidence of certain of those individuals, it not only, it seems to me, works an undue burden in a two-week trial upon the defendants to respond or to try to put in a more favorable light to them whatever the evidence may be, but it actually results in trying more than the six claims that we've really set for trial during this two-week period. And I think that the pattern and practice contentions of the plaintiff will be demonstrated if the evidence shows it ... through statistical data and general policies promulgated by the company or implemented by the company that will be statistically evident ... and, plus, anecdotal evidence directly related to decision-makers or supervisors whose conduct is under attack by these six plaintiffs. We next note that, as a general rule, anecdotal testimony of individual acts of discrimination is admissible to bolster statistical evidence of disparate treatment. See e.g. Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 338, 97 S.Ct. at 1856. However, to be relevant the evidence must have a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. As set forth above, Trial Plaintiffs' burden under the pattern or practice methodology was to show that discrimination was the company's standard operating procedure—the regular rather 23 than the unusual practice. Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336, 97 S.Ct. at 1855. Thus, to show relevancy, Trial Plaintiffs had to show that the proffered anecdotal witnesses were sufficiently similar to themselves so that the witnesses' testimony would have a tendency to show standard [discriminatory] operating procedure and a regular rather than unusual practice of discrimination. Testimony of anecdotal witnesses with different supervisors, working in different parts of the company was simply too attenuated to relate to this threshold issue. Because of their dissimilarity to the Trial Plaintiffs, instead of providing testimony of a company-wide pattern or practice, the excluded anecdotal witnesses' testimony would simply have been evidence of sporadic and isolated occurrences. Because the witnesses were not relevant to the Trial Plaintiffs' burden, we find no abuse of discretion in their exclusion.