The opinion of the court was delivered by: Aspen, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Blanche E. LaDolce ("LaDolce") sued the Bank
Administration Institute ("BAI") for age discrimination in
employment pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) and Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Presently
before the Court are BAI's motion to strike portions of
LaDolce's complaint and its motion in limine. For reasons set
forth below, BAI's motions are granted in part and denied in
BAI's motion to strike is granted with respect to LaDolce's
allegations of mental and emotional distress in paragraph 9.
LaDolce indicates she has waived these claims, and the Seventh
Circuit recently held that damages for pain and suffering are
not available under the ADEA. Pfeiffer v. Essex Wire Corp.,
682 F.2d 684 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1039, 103
S.Ct. 453, 74 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982).
The motion to strike is denied as to LaDolce's prayer for
damages. While LaDolce concedes that discovery indicated that
her actual damages may be less than the amount in her prayer
for relief, $200,000, we agree that proper jury instructions
on this question will avoid prejudice to BAL. We do not
believe that forcing LaDolce to amend her prayer for damages
would serve a useful purpose.
BAI would also strike paragraph 4 from LaDolce's complaint,
as well as two exhibits to the complaint which are EEOC
documents. Paragraph 4 refers to the EEOC's issuance of a
"Letter of Violation" and states that BAI would not
participate in EEOC settlement or conciliation proceedings. We
decline to strike this material from LaDolce's complaint. Such
information neither unduly prejudices BAI nor creates a risk
of confusion. It is settled, moreover, that EEOC findings
pursuant to an investigation are admissible evidence which may
be considered by the courts. Czarnowski v. Desoto, Inc.,
518 F. Supp. 1252, 1257 (N.D.Ill. 1981). The decision to admit into
evidence results of an agency's determination of an employment
discrimination claim is discretionary, McCluney v. Jos. Schlitz
Brewing Co., 728 F.2d 924, 929-930 (7th Cir. 1984).
BAI's motion to exclude evidence of proceedings and findings
by the EEOC, as well as various EEOC documents, is denied for
reasons set forth above. We also note that at trial EEOC
reports and findings are entitled to no greater weight than
any other trial testimony. Spray v. Kellos-Sims Crane Rental,
507 F. Supp. 745, 750 (S.D. Ga. 1981).
Nor should evidence of certain statements made by BAI's
President, Ronald Burke, be excluded. The jury is entitled to
consider such evidence, for remarks by managerial personnel
may establish that age was a factor in the decision to
terminate an employee. E.g., Buchholz v. Symons Mfg. Co.,
445 F. Supp. 706 (E.D.Wis. 1978).
However, evidence of BAI's settlement of an age
discrimination claim with another employee, Izzie Mele, must
be excluded. Scaramuzzo v. Glenmore Distilleries Co.,
501 F. Supp. 727, 732-33 (N.D.Ill. 1980). Such evidence undermines
the public policy favoring out-of-court settlement. Id.
Evidence of a prior age discrimination charge filed by Mele
must also be excluded, since the probative value of any such
evidence is outweighed by undue prejudice to BAI. Id. This is
not to say, however, that evidence or testimony regarding BAI's
prior discriminatory conduct with respect to employees other
than LaDolce should be excluded. Such evidence might support an
inference of discrimination and is clearly relevant. Id. at 733
n. 7. Moreover, Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) allows evidence of other
acts to be admitted to prove motive or intent. Evidence of
prior discriminatory conduct by BAI would clearly be relevant
to the present matter.*fn1 We thus decline to exclude evidence
and documents concerning the termination of Fern Hauck or
evidence of BAI's conduct toward Mele.
Finally, because evidence of events after LaDolce's
discharge might be relevant to LaDolce's claim, we deny BAI's
motion to exclude such evidence. The other documentary
evidence to which BAI objects shall also be admitted, as its
relevance is not outweighed by any risk of prejudice to BAI.