Opinion ID: 67485
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: EEOC Reasonable Cause Determination Letter

Text: Harris argues that the court erred by granting MTC’s motion in limine that sought to exclude the EEOC Letter from the evidence. The district court determined under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that the probative value of the EEOC Letter was substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice to MTC and of misleading the jury.1 We review a district court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion, and we will not reverse the court’s judgment unless the ruling affects the parties’ substantial rights. Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 1 Rule 403 states: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. 5 No. 09-60043 F.3d 357, 375 (5th Cir. 2004); see also EEOC v. Manville Sales Corp., 27 F.3d 1089, 1092–93 (5th Cir. 1994). Harris argues that the district court abused its discretion because the letter is a reasonable cause determination, which he asserts is per se admissible, as opposed to a “letter of violation,” which may be excluded. In making this argument, Harris misreads our precedent. While this court has recognized that EEOC reasonable cause determinations are “highly probative of discrimination,” we have also admonished that such a statement “should not ‘be read as leaving district courts without discretion under Rule 403 to exclude such reports if their probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect or other considerations enumerated in the rule.’” Manville Sales Corp., 27 F.3d at 1095 (internal quotation marks and brackets in first quotation omitted) (quoting Cortes v. Maxus Exploration Co., 977 F.2d 195, 201–02 (5th Cir. 1992)); see also Eason v. Fleming Cos., No. 92-1390, 1993 WL 13015208, at  (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 1993) (“[D]espite their probative value, EEOC determinations may be excluded from evidence . . . pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, where the court determines that their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.”). In excluding the EEOC Letter, the district court determined that the letter threatened to confuse the jury and prejudice MTC because the explanations of its conclusion were diametrically opposed to the facts in the record. Cf. Eason, 1993 WL 13015208, at  (affirming a district court’s decision to admit an EEOC reasonable cause determination that was “fully supported by the record”). The EEOC Letter stated that MTC “did not have a problem with [Harris’s] employment prior to [his] filing a discrimination charge” and that MTC, “without an investigation or corroborating evidence and only after [Harris] filed his charge[,] concluded that [Harris] was the co-worker [named by Hodges] and discharged him.” The record evidence, however, indicates the opposite: Harris 6 No. 09-60043 received written reprimands and had been suspended on at least three prior occasions, and MTC did conduct an investigation in order to determine that Harris was the only other MTC employee working at the job site in question. Harris raises no other argument challenging the district court’s reasoning, and we cannot say the court abused its discretion in excluding the EEOC Letter.