Martha Slaughter-Payne v. Eric Shinseki

Good Law
522 F. App'x 409
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 29, 201311-16815California693 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Martha Slaughter-Payne appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of Eric Shinseki, as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, after the jury returned a verdict denying her employment discrimination claims. She challenges various district court evidentiary rulings involving her employer, Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC). Slaughter-Payne alleged that VAMC took adverse employment actions against her because of her prior involvement in protected activities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The district court’s order granting Shinseki’s motions in limine, prohibiting Slaughter-Payne from introducing evidence of her pre-August 2001 protected activities, may have been too restrictive. This court’s mandate in an earlier appeal, which reversed the summary judgment on the retaliation claim, left room for the introduction of certain background evidence. The excluded evidence was relevant to Slaughter-Payne’s relationship with John Fears, VAMC’s director, and met the low bar for relevancy under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Despite the district court’s initial in limine ruling, at…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.