Fill and Sign the Motion in Limine to Prohibit Evidence on the Issue of Performance Productivity and or Efficiency Mississippi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE       DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI       DIVISION       PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.             DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF PERFORMANCE, PRODUCTIVITY AND/OR EFFICIENCY COMES NOW, Plaintiff,       by and through counsel, and files this his/her Motion, in limine, to Prohibit Evidence on the Issue of Performance, Productivity and/or Efficiency and in support thereof states the following: 1.       was employed by       as       at       .       was terminated by       effective             ,       .       maintains that       was terminated as a result of a job combination of       position of       and       position.       was allegedly not considered for the new position because of a lack of qualifications. Specifically, that       did not have a(n)       degree which was a requirement for the new position. 2. On or about             ,       ,       filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), as a result of his/her termination by       . In his/her complaint,       alleged that his/her age was a "motivating" or "determinative" factor in       's decision to terminate his/her employment.       also alleged that his/her termination was in retaliation for his/her refusal to engage in employment practices prohibited by the       . 3.       , in its response to       's EEOC complaint, (a copy of       's response to the EEOC Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "       "), steadfastly maintained that       was not considered for the new position, "solely because he/she was not qualified since he/she lacked an engineering degree.       's response that the sole reason       was not considered for the new position clearly rules out any other explanations for       's failure to retain       (i.e. place       in the new position) and indirectly established that       's termination was in no way associated with his/her job performance.       respectfully submits that       should be bound by its admission in its EEOC response. 4. Following the filing of his/her Complaint with the EEOC,       , on             ,       , filed the instant action against       on numerous claims, including age discrimination and retaliation. During the course of discovery,       's immediate supervisor,       , in his/her deposition of       (the relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "       ") testified that       's job performance was "adequate" at all times. Here again,       took the position that       's termination was in no way connected with his/her job performance. As such,       's performance is irrelevant to the issues in contest and should be excluded pursuant to Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. As such,       respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order prohibiting       from proffering or introducing any evidence or testimony whatsoever which in any way could show or tend to show that       's termination was in any way based upon his performance or nonperformance of his/her job duties. Specifically, evidence of the following should be excluded: (1) evidence of any alleged personality conflicts between       and other employees of       ; (2) evidence of any alleged inabilities of       regarding his/her computer training and skills or lack thereof; (3) evidence of any alleged unwillingness to adhere to or support "team based" operations or differences in       's management philosophy; (4) any alleged violation(s) by       of company policy regarding the possession of company documents at his/her home or away from the work facility; and (5) evidence of any job evaluation reports. 6. A central element of       's retaliation claim involves       's opposition to certain personnel policies and attempted actions on the part of Defendant,       .       maintains that he/she was directed to take certain actions with respect to at least       former or current       employees which he/she considered to be unlawful and in contravention of the ADEA. Throughout discovery,       has zealously contended that none of its management directed       to take any such actions. At trial in an attempt to discredit witnesses for       who will testify in a confirm that the directives were in fact given as claimed by       ,       may attempt to offer evidence that it directed       to take action against certain employees on the basis of performance and not based on discriminatory reasons. Since       has taken the position that it did not direct       to take the employment action with regard to the five employees it should not now be allowed to recant that position and introduce evidence that       was directed to take action on the employees based on performance. 7.       Respectfully requests this court to issue an Order prohibiting       from proffering or introducing any evidence or testimony whatsoever which in any way could show or tend to show that the employment action which       claims he/she was directed to take with regard to the five employees was in any way based upon performance or nonperformance of their job duties. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff,       , moves this Court pursuant to Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for an order prohibiting       from introducing any evidence whatsoever at trial on the issues of his/her productivity, performance and efficiency. Plaintiff further moves this Court to issue an Order prohibiting       from introducing any evidence whatsoever at trial regarding directives given to       take personnel action on the             employees. Respectfully submitted this the       day of       , 20       . _______________________________________       Attorney for       Of Counsel:                         Telephone:       MSB #       Attorney for       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,       , do hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document, via facsimile and by U.S. Mail, postage fully prepaid, to       , counsel for Defendant. This the       day of       ,       . ______________________________________