PHYLLIS RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TRIPLE K MANUFACTURING, INC., CHARLES MAXINE and BRIAN MAXINE, Defendants-Appellees.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-1035 / 12-0910 Filed January 9, 2013 PHYLLIS RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TRIPLE K MANUFACTURING, INC., CHARLES MAXINE and BRIAN MAXINE, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Richard H. Davidson, Judge. Phyllis Richardson appeals following a jury verdict returned in favor of the defendants. AFFIRMED. Jon H. Johnson of Johnson Law, P.L.C., Sidney, for appellant. Michaelle L. Baumert of Husch Blackwell, L.L.P., Omaha, Nebraska, for appellees. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2 BOWER, J. Phyllis Richardson appeals following a jury verdict returned in favor of the defendants Triple K Manufacturing, Inc., Charles Maxine, and Brian Maxine, on Richardson s claims of battery, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and constructive discharge as a result of sexual harassment. From 2006 to 2010, Richardson was employed at Triple K and was supervised by Charles and Brian Maxine, the president and vice-president and owners of Triple K. Richardson argues the district court abused its discretion in granting the defendants motion in limine to exclude testimony from Triple K employee, Mary Richardson1, in regard to a consensual, extramarital affair she had with Charles Maxine from 1999 to 2000. Upon our review, we agree with the district court that [t]he limited probative value of this testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendants. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.403. We further find the district court properly assessed the defendants postage as allowable court costs. See Iowa Code ยงยง 625.7, .14 (2011). Finding no abuse of the district court s discretion, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 1 Mary Richardson has no relation to plaintiff Phyllis Richardson.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.