Kelee Williams v. Robert Half International, Inc.

Background

The document contains pretrial conference tentative rulings on motions in limine and evidentiary objections in Kelee Williams’s employment case against Robert Half International Inc. The court applied the rules governing relevance and the exclusion of relevant evidence when its value is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, delay, or cumulative presentation.

Motions in Limine

The court ruled as follows:

- Motion D1: Denied Robert Half’s request to exclude a fax from Williams’s counselor, Kathleen Alberts, to Broadspire dated October 1, 2020. Williams may introduce the fax to show that her therapist submitted the form and to support her claim of pretext. - Motion D2: Granted Robert Half’s request to exclude evidence of actions by the Illinois Department of Employment Security. The court stated that the Illinois agency’s determination letter may not be used as evidence in the proceeding under the cited Illinois statute. - Motion D3: Denied Robert Half’s request to exclude communications between Williams and Broadspire. The court found those communications relevant to Williams’s remaining retaliation claims because she alleged improper interference with her benefits request. - Motion D4: Granted Robert Half’s request to exclude evidence that Williams was paid less than men for similar work, or about Robert Half’s compensation of employees, before August 18, 2019. The court stated that Williams did not argue that the pay difference was harassing conduct and did not show that the older pay evidence was relevant to the hostile-work-environment claim. The court also stated that discriminatory conduct before the limitations period could otherwise be considered under the continuing-violations doctrine. - Motion D5: Denied Robert Half’s request to exclude evidence concerning why Chris Brinkman left Robert Half. The court found the harassment of other women by Williams’s former direct supervisor relevant and probative of that supervisor’s hostility toward women, even though Williams acknowledged that Brinkman did not harass her. - Motion D6: Denied Robert Half’s request to exclude settlement communications between attorneys Ellen Bronchetti and Seth Rafkin. The court found that the emails did not constitute confidential settlement communications under Evidence Rule 408 because they did not contain an offer of valuable consideration or communications made during compromise negotiations. The court did not rule at that stage on authentication of the email. - Motion D7: Denied Robert Half’s request to exclude evidence of alleged non-gender-based bullying. The court found the request overbroad and noted that Williams still had retaliation claims that did not necessarily depend on gender-based bullying. - Motion D8: Denied Robert Half’s request concerning the scope of the parties’ non-compete provision. The court found that the motion improperly required interpreting a contract provision in isolation. - Motion D9: Denied Robert Half’s request to exclude Williams’s verbal complaints as unprotected activities. The court found that the complaints were relevant to Williams’s retaliation claim. - Motion D10: Granted in part and denied in part Robert Half’s request to exclude evidence that Williams was excluded from meetings and was not provided a mentor as adverse employment actions. The court excluded evidence about not being provided a mentor but allowed evidence about exclusion from meetings. It found the latter could qualify as an adverse employment action.

Plaintiff’s Objections

The court sustained Williams’s objections to testimony from Dawn Abbey, Tom Andreesen, Gianne Cohoon, Kerry Daley, Kim Lampo, Fran Liontakis, Colleen Tanaka George, Todd Price, Leslie Rife, Stephanie Sweet, and Jill Thompson. The stated reasons included untimely disclosure, lack of a showing that the testimony would not prejudice Williams, and, for Tanaka George, apparent redundancy. The court overruled the objection to Martha Tinajero’s testimony, finding that her identification was late but could hardly have surprised Williams.

The court overruled Williams’s objections to Exhibits A-28–32 and A-36–42, which contained applications for the MBS–VP position, because the qualifications of other candidates were relevant to Robert Half’s legitimate-business-reasons defense. The court did not then rule on the exhibits’ foundations or authenticity. It sustained objections to Exhibits A-98–100, A-106–109, and A-111–122 because the documents were produced after discovery closed. It overruled objections to Exhibit A-110, a total-award-base-salary schedule, because Williams could not have been surprised by it.

Defendant’s Objections

The court sustained Robert Half’s objections to testimony from Jennifer Burgstiner, Ellen Bronchetti, and Vicki Gunn because the witnesses were not timely disclosed and Williams did not establish that their testimony would not prejudice Robert Half.

The court overruled in part and sustained in part the objection concerning the Broadspire records custodian. Williams may call Broadspire’s custodian to authenticate materials produced for trial, but she may not question the custodian about Broadspire’s allegedly insufficient response to an earlier subpoena because the time to compel those responses had passed. The court overruled the objection to Carlos Fraga’s testimony about compensation at Robert Half, finding it relevant to the remaining scope of Williams’s Title VII claim and the pay-difference evidence.

The court sustained the objection to Exhibits 3 and 5, incomplete email chains, and ordered Williams to provide the full chains if she intended to offer them into evidence. It overruled objections to Exhibits 10, 13, 17, 19, 22, and 89. Those exhibits involved a convention agenda, an envelope, correspondence, correspondence between counsel, Chris Brinkman’s file, and Williams’s W-2 wage and tax statements. The court found, among other things, that the exhibits had been previously disclosed, were not late or surprising, or were relevant to the hostile-work-environment inquiry. For Exhibit 89 and other compensation exhibits, the court stated that pay evidence from before August 18, 2019, was not actionable and would not be considered.

The court sustained objections to Exhibit 20, the Illinois agency determination letter, because the letter could not be used as evidence and was hearsay; Exhibit 21, because it was mislabeled and Williams intended to provide a corrected exhibit; Exhibit 62, because it was disclosed late and Williams did not show that the late disclosure was harmless; and Exhibits A-98–100, A-106–109, and A-111–122 for the late-disclosure reasons stated above.

Motion to Strike

Williams filed responses to Robert Half’s objections two days late. Her counsel attributed the delay to a calendaring mistake and asked the court not to strike the responses based on excusable neglect, meaning a deadline failure that is reasonable under the circumstances. Robert Half moved to strike the late responses.

Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied Robert Half’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Objections. The court found that the two-day delay, the absence of any effect on later deadlines, counsel’s good-faith calendaring mistake, and the lack of prejudice to Robert Half established excusable neglect.