WALLACE v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM

Civil Action No. 14-657-SDD-RLB.

DAWN WALLACE, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM, (SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY).

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Dawn Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas M. Chapoton , Powers, Sellers & Chapoton, LLP.

The Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, Defendant, represented by Guy Christopher Curry , Curry & Friend, Ashley E. Gilbert , Curry and Friend, PLC & Ezra Lavi Finkle , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith.

The Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, Southeastern Louisiana University, Defendant, represented by Sharon Bridges , Curry & Friend, PLC.


RULING

SHELLY D. DICK, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Defendant's, Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System (Southeastern Louisiana University) ("Southeastern"), Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Other Female Faculty Members.1 The Plaintiff, Dawn Wallace ("Wallace"), did not file any opposition to the Motion.

This is an equal pay and retaliation case. The Plaintiff alleges wage discrimination on the basis of gender and retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint.2 In discovery, the Plaintiff identified seven female faculty members that she may call as witnesses at the trial of this matter. These faculty witnesses were, likewise, identified in the Pretrial Order.3 Defendant maintains that "evidence regarding the salaries, promotions, or other circumstances of other female faculty members is not relevant to the claims before this Honorable Court and should be excluded at trial."4 The gist of the Defendant's argument is that the testimony of other faculty members is irrelevant and, hence inadmissible, unless and until it is shown that they are "similarly situated".5

The Court defers ruling on the admissibility of the testimony of other female faculty until the time of trial. On the record before it, the Court is unable to make a finding on whether the proposed faculty witnesses are similarly situated. Hence, the determinations of relevance and the weighing of probative value against possible prejudice under F.R.E. 401 and 403 are best made at trial after development of the record.

The Motion in Limine6 is DENIED with full reservation of the Defendant to object at the time of trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Rec. Doc. 59.
2. Rec. Doc. 1.
3. Rec. Doc. 57.
4. Rec. Doc. 59-1.
5. Rec. Doc. 59-1 citing, Gasparini v. Boeing Def. & Space-Corinth Co., 145 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 1998); Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, 891 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir.1990); Gage v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 365 F.Supp.2d 919, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2005), and Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., Inc., 336 F.3d 520, 531-32 (7th Cir.2003).
6. Rec. Doc. 59.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases