Opinion ID: 200077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of the Maine Human Rights Commission's Finding of Discrimination

Text: 18 Appellant also assigns error to the district court's refusal to admit into evidence a right-to-sue letter from the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC). At the outset, we must determine the proper standard of review for the district court's exclusion. Appellant contends that because the district court routinely excludes MHRC right-to-sue letters from the jury's purview, its decision applying that practice here must be reviewed de novo. For support she cites S.E.C. v. Sargent, 229 F.3d 68, 79 (1st Cir.2000), in which we noted that the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence is a question of law which we review de novo. 19 Appellant's argument is flawed in that the district court's exclusion did not involve an interpretation of those rules. We cannot discern a material difference between the district court's practice of excluding these types of letters in other cases and its decision to apply that practice here. At bottom, the question is one of relevancy and prejudice under Rule 403, 4 and it is well-settled that abuse of discretion is the proper standard to be applied to such issues. See, e.g., Gen'l Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997); United States v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d 278, 284 (1st Cir.2002). 20 The MHRC right to sue letter pertinently stated: 21 The Commission has conducted an investigation of the ... complaint of discrimination and has determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that unlawful discrimination has occurred. The decision was based on information received during the course of investigation of the complaint including the Investigator's Report, any written submissions, and any oral presentations made. 22 Pursuant to § 4612(3) of the Maine Human Rights Act, the Commission will endeavor to resolve the reasonable grounds determination. A proposed Conciliation Agreement will be forthcoming from the Commission's Compliance Officer. If no settlement is reached, the Maine Human Rights Act authorizes the filing of a civil action in Superior Court.    The Maine Human Rights Act provides that you may pursue this matter on your own. 23 Appellant asks us to adopt a rule that reasonable grounds findings from the MHRC are per se admissible. For support, she cites Plummer v. Western International Hotels Co., 656 F.2d 502, 505 (9th Cir.1981). The Ninth Circuit's determination of per se admissibility of EEOC determinations cannot be squared with our precedent. In Smith v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 877 F.2d 1106, 1113 (1st Cir.1989), we considered the admissibility of EEOC findings, and agreed with the Seventh Circuit that a rule of per se admissibility of the investigative file would clearly undercut the district court's function as independent fact-finder. The better approach is to permit the district court to determine, on a case-by-case basis, what, if any, EEOC investigator materials should be admitted at trial. Id. (quoting Tulloss v. Near N. Montessori Sch., 776 F.2d 150, 154 (7th Cir.1985)). Moreover, Smith concerned the admissibility of an investigative file, containing statements and other evidence of the alleged discrimination. Here, the right-to-sue letter states only a conclusory probability of discrimination, unsupported by any relevant facts, and thus on its surface lacks the probative content of the excluded investigative file challenged in Smith. 24 The district court's routine exclusion of the MHRC letter is consistent with Smith 's stated approach. It seems to us that the district court's exclusion reflects a tacit balancing under Rule 403. See United States v. De La Cruz, 902 F.2d 121, 123 n. 1 (1st Cir.1990). Although the findings of a fact-finding agency are entitled to deference, see Blizard v. Fielding, 572 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1978), we cannot say that the district court abuses its discretion when it concludes that such an agency determination, unaccompanied by relevant facts, tends to be more prejudicial than probative. 5 25 Affirmed.