That’s Funny (And Relevant)
A Delaware Superior Court has denied a plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of her sense of humor
By her Motion in Limine, Plaintiff now seeks to exclude two pieces of evidence, both relating to her sense of humor. The first consists of alleged email exchanges between herself and Ms. Schafer, in which she sent jokes similarly tasteless to the ones forming the basis of this lawsuit. In particular, Plaintiff points to an email, purported to have originated from her email account, recounting a barb involving a Catholic Priest and a Nun. The second category of evidence Plaintiff attempts to exclude, is any reference to the type of comedians she enjoys. Specifically, Plaintiff highlights an answer she gave in her deposition that she is a fan of the comedians Tracy Morgan and Chris Rock…
Defendants respond by vehemently asserting that Plaintiff’s sense of humor is, in fact, at the core of the case. The relevancy is said to be almost self-apparent. This is an appropriate characterization. Plaintiff formulates her suit as a disparate treatment and disparate impact claim. The significance of this is that disparate treatment claims require a showing of discriminatory intent. The bulk of Defendants’ counter argument is, that far from a discriminatory impetus, they did not act upon Plaintiff’s Complaint, because they felt that the two emailing pen-pals had resolved the matter on their own. Plaintiff’s sense of humor is directly relevant to this point. Defendants do not seek to admit this evidence to assail Plaintiff’s character, but rather to dispute that there was a conflict that required intervention. Furthermore, the existence of a discriminatory intent is a question to be resolved by the jury. Such evidence as the email containing the Catholic joke or Plaintiff’s taste in comedy are appropriate in order for the jury to make credibility determinations, regarding Defendants’ true motive for not taking remedial action. To exclude this evidence would leave the jurywith a one-sided perspective of the event. Rather than mislead the jury, this evidence will provide a more holistic view.
The court accepted the defense arguments. (Mike Frisch)