Uma R. Kandan v. Charlotte Burrows, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled on the EEOC's motion in limine in Uma R. Kandan's sex-discrimination action concerning a promotion decision at the EEOC. The court permitted evidence of the decisionmaker's critical statements about Kandan's accent, leave, and performance, but barred testimony characterizing the conduct as race or national-origin discrimination and excluded evidence of an alleged head-bobble gesture under Rule 403. The ruling was provisional and subject to reconsideration as trial evidence developed.

Holdings

1. Evidence that Irvin criticized Kandan's accent, leave, communication, or job performance was relevant to her sex-discrimination claim because Irvin was the decisionmaker and the statements could show differential treatment, undermining of Kandan's professional development, or an effort to influence others against her.
2. The witness may not testify that Irvin discriminated against Kandan based on race or national origin, or otherwise characterize his conduct as race or national-origin discrimination, because those dismissed claims are immaterial to the remaining sex-discrimination claim.
3. Evidence of Irvin's critical statements about Kandan, including comments concerning her accent and leave to visit India, was admissible under Rules 403 and 404(b), subject to a possible limiting instruction.
4. Testimony about, or reenactment of, the alleged head-bobble gesture was inadmissible under Rule 403 on the record then developed because it presented a significant risk of confusing the issues and unfairly prejudicing the EEOC.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence of Irvin's critical statements about Kandan's accent, leave, communication, and performance was relevant to Kandan's sex-discrimination claim.
2. Whether the witness could characterize Irvin's conduct as race or national-origin discrimination when Kandan had no remaining race or national-origin claim.
3. Whether the challenged evidence was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b).
4. Whether testimony concerning the alleged head-bobble gesture should be excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risks of confusing the issues and unfair prejudice.

Disposition

other