Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E DL OE CC #T :R ONIC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 12/11/2 023 EMILY PENZO, Plaintiff, 1:19-cv-07478-MKV -against- ORDER MEMORIALIZING RULINGS ON DEFENDANT’S CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW MOTIONS IN LIMINE YORK, INC., Defendant. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: On November 27 and November 30, 2023, the Court held pretrial conferences in this matter. At those conferences, the Court issued rulings from the bench on Defendant’s motions in limine. [See ECF Nos. 112–116]. For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding non-similarly situated comparators [ECF No. 112] is DENIED without prejudice to appropriate objections at trial. See Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Whether two employees are similarly situated ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury.”). Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding Plaintiff’s time-barred claims and associated requested relief [ECF No. 113] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Any acts that occurred prior to August 12, 2017 are time-barred with respect to Plaintiff’s ADA claims. Any acts that occurred prior to June 8, 2015 are time-barred with respect to Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. Any acts that occurred prior to August 9, 2016 are time-barred with respect to Plaintiff’s FMLA claims. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude inadmissible hearsay [ECF No. 114] is DENIED for vagueness without prejudice to appropriate objections at trial. Defendant’s motion in /imine to exclude evidence regarding unpled discrimination or wage and hour claims [ECF No. 115] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff may not reference unpled national origin discrimination, race discrimination, gender discrimination, or New York Labor Law wage and hour claims. However, evidence regarding whether certain policies of Defendant, including compensation policies, were applied to Plaintiff in a discriminatory or retaliatory manner is relevant to and probative of Plaintiff’s existing claims. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding Plaintiff’s back pay or front pay damages is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Any such award will be offset by the stipulated-to amount of long-term disability payments that Plaintiff received. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 112, 113, 114, 115, and 116.

SO ORDERED. | / lac Date: December 11, 2023 Ceca retake New York, NY United States District Judge