Tracy v. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs.

• Decision Date: 17 November 2017
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 9:16-CV-80655-ROSENBERG/HOPKINS
• Parties: JAMES TRACY, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES a/k/a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

JAMES TRACY, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEESa/k/a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 9:16-CV-80655-ROSENBERG/HOPKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

November 17, 2017

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Florida Atlantic University's Motion to Exclude Evidence [DE 368]. The Motion has been fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court first addresses (A) Defendant's request to exclude evidence of damages. The Court then addresses (B) Defendant's request to exclude certain witnesses.

A. DAMAGES

The parties dispute what evidence of damages may be presented to the jury. As a result of this Court's order on summary judgment [DE 362], the only remaining Defendant in this case is Florida Atlantic University. Because Defendant is an arm of the State of Florida, the Eleventh Amendment bars a monetary judgment against it on Plaintiff's sole remaining claim—a First Amendment claim. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974) ("Thus the rule has evolved that a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment."). Plaintiff's First Amendment claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff cannot collect monetary damages against Defendant unless Congress has "unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate" the State of Florida's immunity for section 1983 claims, or the State of Florida has waived its immunity for such claims. It is clear that Congress has not abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity for section 1983 claims. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. Of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1301 (11th Cir. 2007). The State of Florida has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for such claims. Gamble v. Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 779 F.2d 1509, 1515 (11th Cir. 1986). Thus, Plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages and punitive damages is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Bell-Babineaux v. Fla. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, No. 8:12-CV-2153, 2014 WL 281971, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2014). For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence on the issue of Plaintiff's damages is supported by law.

In response, Plaintiff argues that he should be able to present evidence for back pay damages, but Plaintiff does not cite case law that is on point. For example, Plaintiff cites to Brown v. Alabama Department of Transportation, 597 F.3d 1160, 1184 (11th Cir. 2010) for the proposition that back pay is considered equitable relief. But the operative question is not whether back pay is equitable relief, but whether back pay damages against Defendant are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. In Edelman v. Jordan, the Supreme Court held that the question of whether a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to a particular remedy does not turn on whether the remedy is legal or equitable. 415 U.S. at 666-667. Instead, the question turns on whether the remedy impacts state funds for compliance for a prospective remedy. See id. A prospective, compliance-based monetary remedy does not violate the Eleventh Amendment. See id. A retrospective monetary remedy does violate the Eleventh Amendment. See id. Because back pay is retrospective, not prospective, it is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Thomas v.Devries, 834 F. Supp. 398, 402 (M.D. Ga. 1993) ("Edelman categorizes this [request for back pay] as a disguised claim for damages."); Parker v. Wallace, 596 F. Supp. 739, 746 (M.D. Ala. 1984) ("Any award of back pay from the defendants . . . whether viewed as damages for illegally dismissing [the plaintiff] or an aspect of equitable relief, would be retroactive and must come from the state treasury. Such an award is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.").

Plaintiff also cites cases such as Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986) for what appears to be the general proposition that a plaintiff suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to damages such as monetary loss, physical pain, and suffering. That is true. But it is not germane to the issue before the Court. The issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff should be able to present evidence at trial of damages when the sole remaining Defendant is immune to the very same damages.

Defendant has provided on-point, cogent authority for the proposition that Plaintiff is not entitled to damages in this case. Plaintiff has not provided any on-point authority for the proposition that even when the Eleventh Amendment immunizes Defendant from monetary damages,¹ Plaintiff may still present evidence at trial of those damages. In the absence of such authority, even if Plaintiff's evidence of damages were relevant—despite being unrecoverable—such evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Defendant because the evidence could only serve to bolster sympathy for Plaintiff. See Godwin v. Wellstar Health Sys., Inc., 1:12-CV-3752, 2015 WL 7313399, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 19, 2015) (denying plaintiff's request to submit evidence to the jury about her depression and lost home as a result of her termination because such damages were not recoverable and theevidence only sought to bolster sympathy for the plaintiff). For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant's request to exclude evidence of damages at trial.

The Court addresses one final matter on the issue of damages. The parties agree that Plaintiff, if successful at trial, is entitled to reinstatement or, if reinstatement is not possible, to front pay. Those remedies are permissible under the Eleventh Amendment because they are prospective, not retrospective, remedies. See Edelman, 415 U.S. at 666-667. Those issues, however, are issues for the Court—not the jury. See Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999) (awarding front pay after trial concluded); Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1316-17 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (trial court directing the parties to file briefs regarding front pay awards after the court received a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs). While Defendant concedes that some courts have submitted the issue of front pay to a jury for an advisory opinion, the Court sees no reason to do so here when evidence of damages is otherwise irrelevant to the jury. See Hudson v. Chertoff, No. 05-60985-CIV, DE 163 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2006) (submitting the issues of back pay and front pay damages to the jury for an advisory opinion). On this issue, Plaintiff's own authority confirms that front pay and reinstatement are issues for the Court. See, e.g., Warren v. Cty. Comm'n of Lawrence City, 826 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1319 (N.D. Ala. 2011) (wherein the court awarded front pay until the plaintiff's projected retirement age). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court will address the issue of reinstatement and front pay, if appropriate, after a jury verdict.

B. WITNESSES

The remaining issues before the Court concern witnesses. Defendant first argues that witnesses previously relevant to Plaintiff's conspiracy count, Count II, are no longer relevant because of the Court's dismissal, in summary judgment, of that count. While it is true that the jury need not decide whether a conspiracy existed in this case, the Court is not prepared toconclude—without the benefit of specific proffered testimony—that evidence of a conspiracy, in the general sense, is irrelevant. In other words, while Plaintiff may not be permitted by law to bring a claim for conspiracy against Defendant and Defendant's employees, such evidence may be relevant, in part, to Plaintiff's sole remaining claim for retaliation. As a result, the Court declines at this juncture to...