Opinion ID: 421169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Refusal to Receive Personnel Files During Rebuttal

Text: 57 On the last day of trial the plaintiff's new attorney attempted to introduce into evidence the personnel files of 123 males. The purpose of this evidence was to demonstrate that men who committed acts similar to those allegedly committed by Capaci were treated more leniently than she, and that the reasons offered to explain her treatment were hence pretextual. The trial judge refused to allow the evidence to be introduced in rebuttal, because he found that the files should have been introduced during the case in chief, if at all, under the circumstances of the case. 58 The plaintiff asserts that this evidence was legitimate proof of pretext, and as such was properly offered in rebuttal under the three-step approach for deciding Title VII cases set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). That case established that once a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the defendant must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d at 678. Once this second step has been met, the plaintiff must ... be afforded a fair opportunity to show that [defendant's] stated reason for [plaintiff's] rejection was in fact pretext. 411 U.S. at 804, 93 S.Ct. at 1825, 36 L.Ed.2d at 679. Capaci sees these three steps in McDonnell Douglas as corresponding to the three major stages of the traditional trial: plaintiff's case in chief, defendant's case in chief, and plaintiff's rebuttal. She argues, therefore, that the trial judge was incorrect in viewing the offered evidence of pretext as inappropriate at the rebuttal stage. 59 We do not believe that McDonnell Douglas requires presentation of proof in a strictly ordered fashion corresponding to the three traditional stages of trial. The tripartite arrangement is a useful tool in analyzing these controversies, but it should not be construed so as to divide a single cause of action into three different cases. Whack v. Peabody & Wind Engineering Co., 595 F.2d 190, 193 (3rd Cir.1979). Although cases are analyzed in terms of these three phases, there is no requirement that the evidence be introduced in such compartmentalized form. Worthy v. United States Steel Corp., 616 F.2d 698, 701 (3d Cir.1980). The McDonnell Douglas decision, did not purport to create an inflexible formulation, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1866, 52 L.Ed.2d 396, 429 (1977), and sets out a method that was never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic, but instead is merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination, Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 57 L.Ed.2d 957, 967 (1978). Most trials would be lopsided indeed if plaintiffs were confined to making the usually simple presentation of proof required to establish a prima facie case 9 in their case in chief, leaving all other complex questions of pretext, disparate treatment, legitimate grounds for rejection of the plaintiff, prior history of discrimination, etc., to be litigated in later stages of the trial. 60 In short, McDonnell Douglas did not radically alter the ordinary rules of evidence, procedure and practice followed by the courts in all trials. The trial court may, subject to review only for abuse of discretion, maintain the pace of the trial, Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir.1979), determine the relevancy and materiality of evidence, United States v. Ashley, 555 F.2d 462, 465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 869, 98 S.Ct. 210, 54 L.Ed.2d 147 (1977); United States v. Calles, 482 F.2d 1155, 1160 (5th Cir.1973), and decide generally whether or not to admit evidence, Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1374 (5th Cir.1981). 61 For several reasons we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to admit the personnel files. Based on the extensive discovery and pretrial order, the plaintiff's attorney was fully aware of the defendant's proffered reasons for failing to promote and discharging her. The questions of disparate treatment and pretext were intertwined under the facts of this case, and were extensively litigated in the plaintiff's case in chief. Employee files and the testimony of many witnesses were introduced at that time. The court made specific findings on issues of pretext in lack of promotion and discharge. 525 F.Supp. at 345, 350. All of the files the plaintiff's attorney wished to introduce were in the courtroom throughout the trial. The trial judge felt that the new attorney, with a complete transcript of the thirty-four days of trial that had transpired a year earlier, was simply attempting to retry the case, as he made clear on the last day of trial: 62 I know, but you reviewed the record, and you're second guessing Mr. Schumacher. You are saying now, well he didn't try the case right. He didn't try the case so we could win it, so I'm going to try it over again. And that we cannot do. If Mr. Schumacher hadn't been an able lawyer I might, well, I might have to do it anyhow, but I would be more inclined, but Mr. Schumacher exhausted all this. I was leaning over backwards during that trial to give this plaintiff every opportunity to get her case before me. If you read that record, you could see that I did. 63 We agree that the plaintiff was given ample opportunity to prove her case. 64 Numerous concerns faced the trial judge. He was no doubt concerned that the plaintiff should not benefit from the sins of her previous attorney, to the unfair detriment of the defendant, by having a new attorney with an unusual opportunity to carefully and leisurely review the transcript and to offer a new approach to trying the case. He was faced with legitimate concerns of the defendant and other litigants on his docket to see this case end. The defendant also argued that the files were cumulative, and that they were offered in a vacuum without any testimony that would make for meaningful comparisons or tell the whole story of what happened to the employees reviewed in the files. Under these circumstances we find no error.