Co-Worker Employment Discrimination Evidence Precluded as Prejudicial

In Boger v. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 17-cv-289, 2019 WL 6038545 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2019) – an age and discrimination case – the court, inter alia, precluded plaintiff from introducing so-called “me too” evidence from plaintiff’s co-workers who were also allegedly discriminated against.

The court reasoned:

Because Nagle and Hammond were not similarly situated to Plaintiff, their testimony has minimal probative value. Descriptions of alleged discrimination by Defendants against Nagle and Hammond would be well outside the scope of the complaint, and would serve only to confuse the issues or mislead the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Court finds that the minimal probative value of the proposed testimony is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues or misleading the jury. See Castro v. City of New York, No. 05-CV-593, 2010 WL 11586591, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2010) (finding that the probative value of the testimony a coworker who experienced discrimination by the defendants was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, and undue delay). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of current and/or former employees of NYS Parks regarding allegations of discrimination unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims is granted with respect to Dorothy Nagle and Robin Hammond.


Share This: