Opinion ID: 2973174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Letter of reprimand

Text: As mentioned above, the city council issued a letter of reprimand to Crosby following the special meeting convened to address Crosby’s personal behavior. While the district court did not bar reference to the letter, and allowed discussion of the reprimand before the jury, the district court 6 excluded the actual letter of reprimand pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Rule 403), finding that the probative value of the text of the letter was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus, while the district court stated that, “of course the testimony concerning the existence of the letter of reprimand, what was done with it, the purported reactions to it and so forth, all of that testimony is appropriate,” it found that the letter itself was only “minimally relevant to the issues that are being tried in this case, the issues that relate specifically to Gale and Crosby’s interaction with her.” (Joint Appendix (“JA”) 1538.) Finally, the trial court found that any minimal relevance the text of the letter might have was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value. Appellants argue that the letter of reprimand is highly probative because it lends credence to Gale’s claim of Crosby’s inappropriate behavior, and that it is relevant in an indirect manner to permit the jury to evaluate the credibility of other evidence offered by Crosby. Appellants essentially argue that the letter tends to contradict Crosby’s testimony that he did not assault or harass Gale after the city council meeting on July 10, 2001, and that he did not stalk Gale. Because the letter indirectly supports the assertion that those incidents occurred, according to Appellants, the district court abused its discretion in excluding the letter. We disagree. Exclusion of the reprimand letter was neither erroneous nor resulted in substantial injustice. The letter made no reference to Gale or any of the specific events Gale alleged in her complaint. It is true that the directives in the letter to “treat employees with respect” and “not harass employees” could be perceived as relating to the Gales’ claims, but the critical issue at trial, as required by the Michigan WPA, was not whether the alleged incidents occurred, but whether Gale’s reporting of them caused Crosby to retaliate against her. See Chandler v. Dowell Schaumberg, 572 7 N.W.2d 210, 212 (Mich. 1998) (outlining the prima facie case under the Michigan WPA, the third of which requires a plaintiff to show that “a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the discharge”). The probative value of the letter, therefore, is diminished by the fact that the crux of the case is not the occurrence or nonoccurrence of these incidents, but whether Crosby retaliated against Gale for reporting that they occurred. While the fact of the reprimand is clearly relevant to that issue, the text of the letter itself sheds no additional light on it. On the other hand, the letter also contained suggestions that Crosby engaged in serious misconduct wholly unrelated to the Gales’ claims, such as using sexually inappropriate language and abusing city resources. In balancing the minimal relevance of the text of the reprimand letter against the potential for substantial prejudice, we are not “firmly convinced” that excluding the letter was a mistake. See Williams, 952 F.2d at 1518. As noted, moreoever, the district court did not bar all reference to the letter; the jury was permitted to hear, and did in fact hear, substantial evidence regarding it. Significantly, Appellants presented evidence that Crosby blamed Gale for being given the reprimand letter, and Gale specifically referenced certain directives in the letter on direct examination. In light of the jury’s exposure to the fact, and even certain aspects of the substance, of the letter, it cannot be said that the Appellants suffered substantial injustice by the district court’s exclusion of the letter itself.