Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-07478
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Penzo v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Vyskocil issued pretrial evidence rulings, partly granting and partly denying several motions in limine.
Emily Penzo and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; the order governs evidence, time limits, and potential damages issues in their case.
What happened
Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. concerns the defendant’s motions about what evidence could be presented. The court memorialized rulings made during two November 2023 pretrial conferences.
The court denied, without prejudice to objections at trial, the motion concerning non-similarly situated comparators and the vague hearsay motion. It granted in part and denied in part motions concerning time-barred claims, unpled discrimination or wage claims, and back-pay or front-pay damages. The court identified the relevant cutoff dates, barred references to certain unpled claims, and ruled that any back-pay or front-pay award would be offset by stipulated long-term disability payments.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the five pending motions. The order did not decide the underlying claims; it addressed evidence and related trial issues.
The detailed version
- Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07478
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 11, 2023
Background
The court held pretrial conferences on November 27 and November 30, 2023. During those conferences, it ruled from the bench on Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.’s motions in limine—pretrial requests seeking to limit or exclude evidence. This order memorialized those rulings.
Rulings
- The motion to exclude evidence about non-similarly situated comparators was denied without prejudice to appropriate objections at trial. The court cited the principle that whether employees are similarly situated ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury. - The motion to exclude evidence about Plaintiff’s time-barred claims and related requested relief was granted in part and denied in part. Acts before August 12, 2017, were time-barred as to Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Acts before June 8, 2015, were time-barred as to Plaintiff’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Acts before August 9, 2016, were time-barred as to Plaintiff’s claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act. - The motion to exclude inadmissible hearsay was denied for vagueness without prejudice to appropriate objections at trial. - The motion to exclude evidence about unpleaded discrimination or wage-and-hour claims was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff could not refer to unpleaded national-origin discrimination, race discrimination, gender discrimination, or New York Labor Law wage-and-hour claims. The court ruled, however, that evidence about whether the defendant’s policies—including compensation policies—were applied to Plaintiff in a discriminatory or retaliatory manner was relevant to and probative of Plaintiff’s existing claims. - The motion concerning Plaintiff’s back-pay or front-pay damages was granted in part and denied in part. Any such award would be offset by the stipulated amount of long-term-disability payments Plaintiff received.
Disposition and effect
The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate the motions at docket entries 112, 113, 114, 115, and 116. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s order addressed pretrial evidence and damages issues; the opinion does not state that it resolved the underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it resolves pretrial evidence motions rather than deciding the parties’ underlying legal claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.