United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
M. Dow, Jr. United States District Judge.
motions in limine 1-4  and Defendant’s motions in
limine 1-5  are granted in part and denied in part as
set forth below. This case remains set for a final pretrial
conference on 8/11/2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
No. 1 -
Motion to Bar Reference to Findings from the Department of
moves in limine to bar reference to any findings or opinions
made by Michael J. Thomas, the District Director of the
United States Department of Labor, Office of Federal
Contracting Compliance Program (“OFCCP”).
Plaintiff says that in March 2013, Mr. Thomas found that
there was “insufficient evidence that the contractor
violated its obligations under the nondiscrimination and/or
affirmative-action provisions of the Vietnam-Era Veterans
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, As Amended.” [126,
at 66.] Defendant does not oppose this motion, confirming
that “it is not seeking to introduce the OFCCP’s
findings at trial.” [127, at 9.] Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
No. 2 -
Motion to Bar Reference to Findings from Administrative
to her first motion, Plaintiff moves in limine to bar
reference to any findings or opinions regarding the facts of
this case made by any administrative body, including
the findings or opinions of Colonel Thomas Gorski of the
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
(“ESGR”) and/or Timothy Soderlund of
Veterans’ Employment and Training Service
(“VETS”). Defendant does not oppose this motion
as it relates to the findings and opinions of Timothy
Soderlund of VETS, and thus Plaintiff’s motion is
granted as to that issue.
Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion as it relates to
Colonel Thomas Gorski of ESGR, stating that, if called to
testify, Col. Gorski would offer “relevant, admissible
evidence concerning Volvo’s participation in the ESGR
mediation with Arroyo that successfully resolved several
points regarding Arroyo’s military leave. Additionally,
Colonel Gorski presented Keith Schroeder with a Patriotic
Employer Award after Schroeder was nominated by Arroyo for
the same.” [127, at 9.] At the final pre-trial
conference, the parties identified the following witnesses as
likely to be called to testify at trial: Keith Schroeder,
Michael Temko, Sherrie Jankowski, Maureen Somersett, and
Plaintiff LuzMaria Arroyo. Plaintiff also has indicated that
she would like to have excerpts from the depositions of
Regina Williams and Dennis Sholl read at trial. Defendant has
objected to the reading of the depositions. Because neither
party has indicated a likelihood of calling Col. Gorski at
trial, the Court reserves ruling on this aspect of the
motions in liming. If either party believes that Col.
Gorski’s testimony should be presented at trial, that
party should raise the issue with the Court at the earliest
No. 3 -
Motion to Bar Evidence Regarding Unrelated Police Shootings
in the Media
moves in limine to bar any testimony, argument, or inference
regarding unrelated stories of police shootings in the media.
Defendants’ motion is granted. Any such evidence is
irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Fed.R.Evid. 403;
Rodriguez v. Cervantes, 2009 WL 3460100, at *2 (N.D.
Ill. Oct. 20, 2009) (granting a similar motion); Morrow
v. City of Chicago, 2011 WL 494577, at *1 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 7, 2011) (same). In addition, Defendant does not oppose
this motion. [127, at 9.] Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion is granted.
No. 4 -
Motion to Bar Reference to Alleged Argument Between Adams and
moves in limine to bar any reference to or mention of an
alleged argument between Plaintiff and Tracey Adams, during
which Plaintiff was reported to have confronted and
threatened Adams after Adams complained to the police that
Plaintiff parked her motorcycle in a handicap-designated
parking space at the Volvo facility. Plaintiff’s motion
claim in this case is that Defendant fired her for
discriminatory reasons-i.e., on the basis of her
military service and her disability (post-traumatic stress
disorder (“PTSD”)). Defendant says that it fired
Plaintiff because of her poor attendance record. Plaintiff
likely will dispute Defendant’s claim at trial, arguing
that Defendant’s purported rationale for firing her is
pretextual. To rebut this claim, Defendant intends to
introduce evidence regarding this alleged threat-which it
claims is a fireable offense-to show that it had other
opportunities to terminate Plaintiff had that been its true
motive. As Defendant says, “[t]he fact that Volvo did
not terminate Arroyo on the spot for calling Adams ‘the
enemy’ and referring to Adams as ...