Opinion ID: 543624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: exclusion of women firefighters' testimony

Text: 32 Plaintiffs' second assignment of error is that the district court improperly excluded the testimony of women firefighters who had been hired pursuant to a 1985 court-approved agreement between the city and plaintiffs. Although the district court, in granting the city's motion in limine to exclude the testimony, did not explain the basis for this decision, the court did incorporate by reference the arguments the city made in its supporting memorandum. 33 The city argued, essentially, that the testimony would be irrelevant and, even if relevant, more prejudicial than probative. If the jury discovered that the city had already hired women firefighters outside its normal selection procedure, the city argued, they would undoubtedly infer that the City or this Court believed that the City's selection method was faulty. 34 Plaintiffs' proffer suggests that the testimony would have been relevant to plaintiffs' case. According to the proffer, the female firefighters would have testified about: 35 1. Their experiences in the Cleveland Firefighters Training Academy, including information about the type of training they received and the type of exercises that were stressed. 36 2. Their relevant employment history. 37 3. Their conclusions that the events on the 1983 physical performance examination were not representative of their actual duties. 38 4. Their assignments since graduating from the firefighting academy. 39 Testimony of that nature could be relevant to a central issue in this case--the validity of the selection device. While the judge may have been motivated by a desire not to confuse or prejudice the jury, the decision to exclude all the proffered testimony was improper. The city was mainly concerned that the jury would conclude that its agreement in 1985 to hire female firefighters was tantamount to a concession of liability in this case. However, the female firefighters could have testified without alerting the jury to the manner in which they were hired. 40 In reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence on the basis of relevancy, unfair prejudice, or confusion of the issues, two factors must be considered. First, a reviewing court will not reverse such a decision on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Conklin v. Lovely, 834 F.2d 543, 551 (6th Cir.1987). Second, even if the lower court's decision amounts to an abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed on appeal if it did not result in a substantial injustice, as no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is ground for reversal or granting a new trial unless refusal to take such action appears to the court to be inconsistent with substantial justice. McGowan v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 863 F.2d 1266, 1271 (6th Cir.1988) (citing TCP Industries, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc., 661 F.2d 542, 550 (6th Cir.1981)). 41 While the district court perhaps was overzealous in its attempt to protect the jury from unfair prejudice, we are unable to conclude that its decision prejudiced plaintiffs' cause, resulting in substantial injustice. The evidence which plaintiffs wished to present through the testimony of the female firefighters was substantially the same as that of the male firefighters who were allowed to testify on their behalf. Similarly, they did present their own expert testimony and had ample opportunity to cross-examine the city's witnesses. While we view the decision of the district court as unfortunate, under these circumstances we are unable to conclude that the exclusion of the female firefighters' testimony was prejudicial to plaintiffs' cause.