Woman Files Gender Based Lawsuit Against Employer

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff may not offer evidence of purported comments made by Lee relating to race, national origin and religion. Hill is a Caucasian female who is claiming only gender based harassment and discrimination. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that Hill will attempt to sway the jury with testimony of purported racist and anti-Semitic remarks made by Lee. Evidence of any such remarks is manifestly irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded. See e.g. Galarraga v. Marriott Employees FCU, 70 F.E.P. Cases 1605, 1610 (D. Md. 1996) (in granting defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination under the Equal Pay Act ( EPA ), the Court held that evidence of comments regarding plaintiff’s accent would demonstrate national origin-based animus rather than gender-based animus, and would not raise a reasonable inference of gender discrimination, and is, therefore, irrelevant to plaintiff’s claim). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

See also, McClain v. Mack Trucks. Inc., 85 F.R.D. 53, 63 (E.D. Penn. 1979) (limiting discovery on motion to compel to evidence of racial discrimination on the ground that [w]hether [defendant] discriminates against employees on the basis of religion, creed, gender or national origin is wholly irrelevant to [plaintiff’s] present claim of racial discrimination).

Prouty v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 99 F.R.D. 545, 546 (D. D.C. 1983) (denying discovery on motion to compel interrogatories relating to race of defendant’s employees on the ground that such evidence is not relevant to plaintiff’s age discrimination claim). (See Part 10 of 10.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.