AGLIORI v. ALCOA, INC. - Document 56
Court Description:
ORDER OF COURT RE: Motions in Limine DENYING 36 Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony Regarding Plaintiff's Efforts to Mitigate Damages; DENYING 39 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony by Plaintiff's Proposed Expert as to Front Pay Calculations; and GRANTING 41 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence of an Alleged Prior Discriminatory Act as more fully set forth in this Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 3/5/2012. (lcb)
Loading PDF...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MONICA M. AGLIORI,
Plaintiff,
11cv0685
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
v.
ALCOA, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Doc. Nos. 36, 39, 41)
Presently before this Court are the following Motions in Limine: (1) Plaintiff, Monica
Agliori’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony Regarding Plaintiff’s Efforts
to Mitigate Damages (Doc. No. 36); (2) Defendant, Alcoa, Inc.’s Motion in Limine to Bar
Testimony by Plaintiff’s Proposed Expert as to Front Pay Calculations (Doc. No. 39); and (3)
Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence of an Alleged Prior Discriminatory Act (Doc.
No. 41). After careful consideration of the Motions in Limine and Responses thereto (Doc. Nos.
53, 54, and 55) on this 5th day of March 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony Regarding Plaintiff’s Efforts
to Mitigate Damages (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED. Mr. Staller and Dr. Markham are
qualified as expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702. They are permitted to
give testimony on all aspects of their expert reports because they are admissible under
Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402. The matters of this motion are more appropriately
handled on cross-examination.
2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony by Plaintiff’s Proposed Expert as to
Front Pay Calculations (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED. Ms. Mascetta is qualified as an
expert witness pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702. She is permitted to give testimony on
Plaintiff’s economic damages following her termination from employment. The
matters of this motion are more appropriately handled on cross-examination.
3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence of an Alleged Prior Discriminatory
Act (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED subject to re-visiting the issue at trial should
Defendant offer evidence or testimony about Plaintiff’s job performance during the
time period she was passed over for the Team Lead position in Alcoa’s Requisition
through Payment Group in 2007.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:
All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
2
