Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fralick v. Biaggi's Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

February 13, 2018

CASEY FRALICK, Plaintiff,
v.
BIAGGI'S INC., an Illinois corporation, BIAGGI'S RISTORANTE ITALIANO L.L.C., an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Defendants.

          ORDER PROVIDING NOTICE OF COURT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

          JOE BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge.

         On February 8, 2018, the Court held a pre-trial conference in the above-captioned matter. The conference was continued to February 15, 2018. Prior to the conference, the parties submitted Joint Jury Instructions, as well as individual instructions proposed by each party. (See Doc. 70, Exhs. G, H, I). The parties also submitted, in writing, their arguments regarding jury instruction disagreements. Before the formal pre-trial conference began on February 8, the Court indicated to the parties which instructions it intended to accept, reject, and accept as modified. After thorough discussion, disputes remained on five instructions while the remainder of the instructions were agreed to.

         The Court hereby transmits the below proposed jury instructions so the parties may review them before the final pre-trial conference on February 15, 2018.

         Court Proposed Instruction No. 1, as modified

         To succeed on the interference claim, Plaintiff must prove all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

         First: Plaintiff had a health condition that was a “serious health condition.” I will define “serious health condition” for you in a moment. The parties stipulate that Plaintiff had a health condition that was a “serious health condition.” Second: Defendant had appropriate notice of Plaintiff's need for leave. I will define “appropriate notice” for you in a moment.

         Third: Defendant interfered with his right to take FMLA leave by not giving him leave, terminating him, and not allowing him to return to his job or an equivalent position.

         This instruction follows Seventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 10.2 for an FMLA interference claim. For purposes of clarity for the jury, the Court combined elements one and two from the pattern instruction, and added that the parties have stipulated to the satisfaction of the first element. Court Proposed Instruction No. 1, as modified, intends to replace Court Proposed Instruction No. 1. Plaintiff's Proposed Instruction No. 1 remains rejected because of this instruction.

         Court Proposed Instruction No. 3

         You have heard evidence that the Plaintiff lied on his application for employment with the Defendant about a theft conviction. You may consider this evidence in regard to Plaintiff's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

         Assuming you find for Plaintiff, you will have to assess the amount and type of damages to which the Plaintiff is entitled. If you find that Plaintiff lied on his application for employment with Defendant, and Defendant would have fired Plaintiff on learning of Plaintiff's misconduct, Plaintiff's damages may be curtailed and limited through the date when Defendant learned of Plaintiff's misconduct.

         In its February 2, 2018, Order, the Court indicated that Plaintiff's 2008 felony theft condition would be admitted only on the issue of damages. (Doc. 88 at 5-6). However, upon further consideration, the Court believes that the conviction should, and must, be admitted for purposes of impeachment, as well. Federal Rule of Evidence 609 limits the admissibility of convictions that are over ten years old. Evidence of a conviction that is more than ten years old is admissible only if “its probative value, supported by the specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect, ” and “the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so the party has fair opportunity to contest its use.” Fed.R.Evid. 609(b).

         After considerable thought on the issue, the Court believes the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect because Biaggi's almost certainly would not have hired Plaintiff had it been aware that he was convicted of felony theft for stealing from a prior employer. For that reason, this conviction is extremely probative to the issues of damages and Plaintiff's veracity. Thus, the Court believes that this instruction adequately accounts for Plaintiff's conviction, him lying on his application about same, and for what purpose the jury can consider each act when analyzing the evidence in this matter. Court Proposed Instruction No. 3 intends to replace Joint Instruction No. 38 and Court Instruction No. 2.

         Court Proposed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.