UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
April 5, 2013
SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO, INC.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 9 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE RULING ON EVIDENCE OF LAST 10 CHANCE AGREEMENTS; ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND EXHIBIT LIST 11 [Dkt. Nos. 107, 108]
On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff Diwan Williams filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration 16 Specifically, the Court ruled:
17 Plaintiff may present evidence that other employees who, like Plaintiff, were exclusively under the new attendance policy (i.e., they were not covered under the regarding the Court's ruling on Defendant Sysco's motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from 15 presenting evidence regarding "last chance agreements" offered to other Sysco employees.
18 previous attendance policy) were provided last chance agreements after they accrued sufficient points for termination.
20 Dkt. No. 106 at 5. The Court further indicated that "Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff any 21 discovery necessary regarding whether individuals who were offered last chance agreements were 22 under Defendant's old or new attendance policy." Id. 23 In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that on March 29, 2013, Defendant produced evidence 24 regarding the last chance agreements provided to three employees, which Plaintiff argues 25 demonstrate that the employees were similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of whether they were 26 covered by Defendant's new attendance policy. 27 The Court has thoroughly considered Plaintiff's arguments and reviewed the documents 28 attached to his Motion and rules as follows.
1 It is undisputed that "Employee C" only received attendance violations under the March 2009 2 attendance policy. Accordingly, consistent with the Court's prior ruling, evidence regarding any last 3 chance agreement provided to Employee C is not precluded. 4 However, with respect to Employee A and Employee B, the Court finds that both Employees 5 had attendance violations under the pre-March 2009 attendance policy. 6 As Plaintiff acknowledges, Employee A only received one warning under the March 2009 7 policy. Thus, Employee A was not covered exclusively by the March 2009 policy, and is therefore 8 not similarly situated to Plaintiff in that respect. 9 With respect to Employee B, although Plaintiff has alleged that the 2 attendance points 10 Employee B accumulated under the pre-March 2009 policy were removed and thus not considered as 11 part of Employee B's attendance points accumulated under the new policy, the evidence does not 12 demonstrate that Defendant completely ignored the fact that Employee B had received points under
For the Northern District of California
B had at least accumulated some points under the pre-March 2009 policy is sufficient to distinguish 15 Employee B from Plaintiff such that they are not similarly-situated. While there is some dispute as to D 16 the extent to which Defendant took those violations into account when determining whether to offer
17 last chance agreements, there is testimony in the record from Defendant that the confusion that
COURT 13 both policies when deciding whether to offer a last chance agreement. Thus, the fact that Employee C
18 resulted from the transition from the old attendance policy to the new policy was taken into 19 consideration when offering last chance agreements. Moreover, because Employee B accumulated
20 points under both policies, any probative value regarding the last chance agreement offered to 21 Employee B is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, potentially misleading the 22 jury, and consideration of undue delay. 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be precluded from proffering evidence or argument relating to last 24 chance agreements offered to Employee A and Employee B. 25 Plaintiff has also requested, by separate motion, to amend his exhibit list to add the documents 26 Defendant produced on March 29th. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request with respect to 27 documents relating to Employee C, but DENIES Plaintiff's request as to documents relating to 28 1 Employees A and B. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4
For the Northern District of California For the Northern District of California
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.