Opinion ID: 2709694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ruling on Government’s Motion in Limine

Text: Parker claims that the district court abused its discretion in ruling on the government’s motion in limine because the jury was not allowed to know all related facts surrounding her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) action against LaSalle Bank, which she claims deprived her of a complete defense. We review a ruling excluding evidence under Rule 403 for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Taylor, 701 F.3d 1166, 1172-73 (7th Cir. 2012). On or about January 8, 2004, Parker filed a charge of discrimination against LaSalle Bank with the EEOC, alleging sexual harassment by a co-worker. The EEOC sent notice of the charge to LaSalle Bank and No. 12-1991 17 subsequently notified the bank that it had found that Parker’s claim was supported by probable cause. On February 2, 2005, Parker and LaSalle Bank entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Parker received $33,750 in exchange for her resignation and release of her EEOC charge against the bank. The bank waived all actions against Parker arising out of her employment based on Parker’s “warranty and representation that she did not participate in the theft and fraudulent use of temporary checks from the Gateway Branch in 2004.” Before trial, the government moved in limine to preclude Parker from eliciting evidence or making argument related to her EEOC charge and any findings by the EEOC. The district court granted the motion in part, ruling that the EEOC findings were not independently admissible. The court also indicated that it would consider the use of the EEOC charge and findings for purposes of attempting to show that government witnesses were biased against Parker, based on a showing outside the presence of the jury, that the witnesses were aware of the charge. At trial, the government called bank investigator Margie Szewczyk and teller manager Leslie Jones as witnesses. The district court conducted a voir dire examination of Szewczyk outside the jury’s presence. Szewczyk said that near the end of her investigation, she became aware that Parker had a claim pending against the bank involving an HR (Human Resources) issue. Szewczyk also said that she did not know that the 18 No. 12-1991 claim involved the EEOC or a discrimination claim. Based on this testimony, the court ruled that Parker’s counsel could cross-examine Szewczyk for bias on whether she was aware that Parker had a claim against the bank involving HR, but barred any reference to the EEOC. Szewczyk testified on cross-examination that, a few days before she interviewed Parker in November 2004, she had learned Parker had filed a claim involving human resources against LaSalle Bank. Szewczyk stated that she was not given any details about Parker’s claim; she was aware that there was some issue with HR, she believed it was a lawsuit and thought it involved discrimination. The district court also examined Jones outside the jury’s presence. Jones stated that, not long after she began working at the bank, in about March 2004, she learned through “talk . . . in the bank” of Parker’s lawsuit against the bank and EEOC charge alleging harassment. Jones said that she learned the EEOC charge was resolved by settlement “months later,” but she didn’t know any of the details. Based on this testimony, the district court allowed Parker’s counsel to cross-examine Jones for bias. Jones testified on cross-examination that, shortly after she began working at the bank, she heard that Parker had filed the EEOC charge against the bank for harassment. Parker also offered testimony about her EEOC charge, stating that when she resigned from the bank she was on the payroll but not working “because of other issues No. 12-1991 19 like retaliation and sexual harassment.” The district court sustained the government’s objection and then conducted a voir dire examination of Parker outside the jury’s presence. Parker claimed that Szewczyk and Jones discussed the EEOC complaint with her. The district court ruled that Parker could testify about statements made by Szewczyk and Jones regarding the EEOC claim in an attempt to show bias. Parker testified that on about November 18, 2004, she was interviewed by bank investigator Szewczyk and Szewczyk told her, regarding the EEOC charge, that “I was making everyone’s job hard.” Parker added that “[i]t was a lot of things said at a lot of different times. It was just a hostile situation.” Parker also testified that in March or April 2004, Jones told her that: I was making everyone’s—their job hard to deal with because of the complaint . . . . That it was going to be people losing their jobs about the complaint if it came to pass. Or once they did the investigation and found that everything were [sic] true, and then the investigators came back with their decision, that people would end up losing their jobs because of that. The government recalled Szewczyk and Jones in rebuttal. Both of them denied saying what Parker had claimed they had said in reference to her EEOC charge. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also United 20 No. 12-1991 States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402; see United States v. Burge, 711 F.3d 803, 814 (7th Cir. 2013). “Proof of bias is almost always relevant, as ‘[a] successful showing of bias on the part of a witness would have a tendency to make the facts to which he testified less probable in the eyes of the jury than it would be without such testimony.’ ” United States v. Ozuna, 674 F.3d 677, 682 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 51-52 (1984)). Parker’s EEOC charge against the bank and the facts surrounding the charge were of no consequence in this action other than to show a witness’s bias. And, obviously, a witness cannot be biased based on information of which she is unaware. The voir dire of Szewczyk established that she was aware of Parker’s claim against the bank, and the voir dire of Jones established that she was aware of Parker’s EEOC charge. The district court allowed Parker to cross-examine these witnesses on their awareness of her claim or EEOC charge in an effort to show bias. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling on the government’s motion in limine and its decision to limit the use of evidence about the EEOC charge to show bias on the part of Szewczyk and Jones.