Leopold v. Baccarat, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
174 F.3d 261 (1999)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Andree Leopold (plaintiff) was employed by Baccarat Inc. (defendant) as a fine china and crystal saleswoman for over 20 years. In 1994, at the age of 62, Leopold was terminated from her employment. Leopold subsequently filed suit in federal court, alleging that she was unlawfully discriminated against and discharged based on her age. Before trial, Leopold filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence that she made certain bigoted comments during her employment. The district court denied Leopold’s motion. As a result, Baccarat called Leopold’s supervisor, Watts, to testify about several antigay, anti-Semitic, and anti-Hispanic comments made by Leopold to her coworkers. Watts claimed that the comments, along with Leopold’s general hostility toward management, were the basis for her termination. On appeal, Leopold argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion because Watts’s testimony had minimal probative value yet was highly prejudicial and needlessly cumulative. Thus, exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 was required.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cabranes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
