Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Background

At a pretrial conference, the court reserved decision on a motion by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Darren Brindisi, and Theresa Kong to prevent testimony by Dr. Marc Janoson concerning Welby Accely's emotional damages. Andy Feehan joined that objection. The opinion identifies the underlying claims as claims of unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation.

Accely argued that Dr. Janoson's report was admissible because it concerned the cause of his emotional damages. He also argued that the report met the standards for expert testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Analysis

The court explained that relevant evidence may be admitted unless its usefulness is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay. Expert testimony is allowed when it would help the fact-finder understand the evidence or decide an issue, and when it is based on sufficient information and reliable methods properly applied to the case.

The court found the report irrelevant to Accely's discrimination and retaliation claims for two reasons. First, the report referred to "ethnically driven" harassment rather than racial harassment. More importantly, the report did not evaluate the emotional harm allegedly caused by the defendants' conduct or give an opinion about the cause or extent of that harm.

Dr. Janoson was not Accely's treating psychologist. His report summarized two general personality assessments—the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 and the Personality Assessment Inventory—and described Accely as prone to anger and sensitive to perceived unfairness. Although the report mentioned Accely's employment history and allegations of harassment at Con Edison, it did not connect that alleged conduct to Accely's emotional well-being. The court stated that the report might instead undermine Accely's emotional-harm claim.

Ruling

Judge Denny Chin, a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation, granted the defendants' motion to preclude Dr. Janoson's testimony and expert report. The court found that the evidence's probative value was low and substantially outweighed by the risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, and delay. The court did not reach Accely's Daubert argument. Dr. Janoson will not be permitted to testify.