National Litigation Hotline

Exclusion of Key Employer Witnesses Warrants New Trial

Setting aside a $300,000 verdict, he Sixth Circuit has held that a trial court erred in refusing to allow three key employer witnesses to testify in a racial harassment trial. Wheaton v. North Oakland Med. Ctr., 2005 WL 1130983 (6th Cir. May 10).

Plaintiff Lana Wheaton, a caucasian employee of the medical center, alleged that she was harassed starting in the summer of 1998. She claimed to have found “threatening and racially charged notes” on her car, including a note threatening her with physical violence. At trial, Wheaton testified that after she reported the notes to her supervisor, but no disciplinary action was taken. In 2000, Wheaton found an offensive e-mail in her desk, disparaging white females and criticizing interracial relationships. (Wheaton's longtime boyfriend was black.) When Wheaton again complained, management concluded that the harassment was due to personality conflicts. The entire department in which Wheaton worked was counseled on the medical center's harassment policy, but no one was disciplined. Wheaton filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial harassment. At trial, the court refused to allow the testimony of three potentially key employer witnesses who arrived late. After trial, Wheaton was awarded $1 million in damages. Those damages were later capped at Title VII's limit of $300,000. The medical center appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the three witnesses to testify.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to permit the employer to present the testimony of the employer witnesses, and ordered a new trial. The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to reopen the employer's case “to present the testimony of three clearly relevant (even if tardy) witnesses.” Although the court understood and approved of the trial judge's “desire to keep the trial moving and avoid wasting jurors' time, it nevertheless found that the trial judge could have permitted the testimony of the witnesses in question with “no risk of prejudice to [plaintiff Lana] Wheaton, no chance of jury confusion, and very little inconvenience to the jury.”

Exclusion of Key Employer Witnesses Warrants New Trial

Setting aside a $300,000 verdict, he Sixth Circuit has held that a trial court erred in refusing to allow three key employer witnesses to testify in a racial harassment trial. Wheaton v. North Oakland Med. Ctr., 2005 WL 1130983 (6th Cir. May 10).

Plaintiff Lana Wheaton, a caucasian employee of the medical center, alleged that she was harassed starting in the summer of 1998. She claimed to have found “threatening and racially charged notes” on her car, including a note threatening her with physical violence. At trial, Wheaton testified that after she reported the notes to her supervisor, but no disciplinary action was taken. In 2000, Wheaton found an offensive e-mail in her desk, disparaging white females and criticizing interracial relationships. (Wheaton's longtime boyfriend was black.) When Wheaton again complained, management concluded that the harassment was due to personality conflicts. The entire department in which Wheaton worked was counseled on the medical center's harassment policy, but no one was disciplined. Wheaton filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial harassment. At trial, the court refused to allow the testimony of three potentially key employer witnesses who arrived late. After trial, Wheaton was awarded $1 million in damages. Those damages were later capped at Title VII's limit of $300,000. The medical center appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the three witnesses to testify.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to permit the employer to present the testimony of the employer witnesses, and ordered a new trial. The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to reopen the employer's case “to present the testimony of three clearly relevant (even if tardy) witnesses.” Although the court understood and approved of the trial judge's “desire to keep the trial moving and avoid wasting jurors' time, it nevertheless found that the trial judge could have permitted the testimony of the witnesses in question with “no risk of prejudice to [plaintiff Lana] Wheaton, no chance of jury confusion, and very little inconvenience to the jury.”