EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS IS ADMISSIBLE IN HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT/RETALIATION CASE

• Tuesday, June 19, 2018
• Category: Employment Law

Evidence of prior convictions admitted where offenses related directly to offenders’ abilities to be truthful, such that their probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect arising from the convictions’ remoteness. Parties’ motions to introduce evidence of prior convictions granted.

Plaintiff Pamela Johnson moved to introduce evidence of prior convictions of her former supervisor, Charles Lane; defendant Keystone Quality Transport Company, Johnson’s former employer, cross-moved to introduce evidence of Johnson’s prior convictions. Johnson’s complaint asserted claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance. Johnson alleged that she was sexually harassed and assaulted by Lane and that Keystone’s managers Frank Maglorie and Barbara Crews failed to act promptly and reasonably in response to Johnson’s complaints and retaliated against her for those complaints.

The court noted that, while evidence of crimen falsi convictions were automatically admissible, evidence of felony convictions that were not crimen false had to have the prejudicial effect of admission weighed against their probative value. However, the court further noted that evidence of either type of conviction, where more than 10 years had passed since the conviction or release from confinement, had to have the prejudicial effect weighed against probative value.

As to Johnson’s proffered evidence of Lane’s convictions for theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, burglary, tampering with records, and theft by deception, the court ruled that the convictions from the early 1990s were inadmissible because the remoteness meant their probative value did not outweigh the prejudicial effect. However, the court admitted Lane’s more recent convictions from the late 2000s, since the offenses bore directly on a person’s truthfulness and were not so remote from the present day such that their admission would be overly prejudicial.

As to Keystone’s proffered evidence of Johnson’s 2004 conviction for theft by receipt of stolen property, the court admitted the conviction, finding the offense highly probative of truthfulness, such that the prejudicial effect from the conviction’s remoteness was outweighed. Accordingly, the court granted the parties’ motions.

Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 41 PLW 203, February 27, 2018, Johnson v. Keystone Quality Transport Co., PICS Case No. 18-0203 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2018).

Kindly visit our Business & Commercial Litigation or Employment Law websites or contact one of our Business Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia or Employment Law Attorneys at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.