Opinion ID: 63004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: EEO Investigative File

Text: We also reject Andrews-Willmann’s argument that the district court erred in permitting the government to offer evidence from the EEO investigative file.5 A federal agency conducting an EEO program is required to “develop an impartial and appropriate factual record upon which to make findings on the claims raised by the written complaint.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(b). EEOC reports and determinations are generally admissible under the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) “‘unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.’” Barfield v. Orange County, 911 F.2d 644, 650-51 (11th Cir. 1990). Andrews-Willmann does not identify any specific inaccuracies in her investigative file and offers no concrete examples of improper bias. In any event, 5 A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 556 (11th Cir. 1998). 13 while Andrews-Willmann did request that the EEO investigator interview additional individuals, this request was denied because she failed to explain why the particular individuals would have relevant, firsthand information. AndrewsWillmann does not challenge the agency’s reason for denying her request and has never explained what relevant information those individuals might possess. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that Andrews-Willmann attempted to secure corroborating statements on her own, despite her obligation to do so to avoid summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the district court erred in admitting this evidence.