United States District Court, District of Columbia
Leonard I. HOWARD, Plaintiff,
Vincent C. GRAY, Defendant.
Leonard I. Howard, Washington, DC, pro se.
John Felix Pressley, Jr., Law Office of John F. Pressley, Jr., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Leonard Howard filed suit against Vincent Gray, in his official capacity as the Mayor of the District of Columbia, alleging Howard was denied a reasonable accommodation of and wrongfully terminated from his position as a Financial Manager for the District of Columbia based on his physical disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's  Motion in Limine, and the Plaintiff's objections to the Defendant's exhibits and witnesses. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record before the Court, the Defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Plaintiff's objections sustained in part and overruled in part as set forth below.
In his motion, the Defendant moves to exclude five categories of evidence/argument: (1) evidence or arguments relating to Plaintiff's claims prior to January 2006; (2) evidence or arguments regarding disabilities not pled in the Complaint; (3) expert testimony from Dr. Higgins and Dr. Menon; (4) evidence or argument to the effect that the Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff by opposing his request for temporary disability benefits; and (5) evidence or argument to the effect that the Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff by opposing his request for disability
retirement benefits. The Defendant further moves to admit evidence that the Plaintiff is receiving total temporary disability benefits. The Court shall address each category of evidence in turn.
A. Evidence Relating to Plaintiff's Claims Before January 2006
Initially, the Defendant moves to preclude the Plaintiff from introducing evidence regarding Plaintiff's now-dismissed claim that he was denied a reasonable accommodation of his disability between April 7, 2004 and December 2005. The Court agrees that Plaintiff cannot argue the Defendant is liable for failing to accommodate the Plaintiff's purported disability prior to January 2006 in light of the Court's 10/20/2011 Order, ECF No. , granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss those very claims. However, evidence regarding the Plaintiff's physical capacity and interactions with the Defendant prior to January 2006 is relevant to the Plaintiff's remaining claim. Evidence regarding the Plaintiff's age, race, and gender discrimination claims has no apparent relevance, and thus the Plaintiff cannot seek to admit any evidence relating to these claims without first identifying the legal theory under which the evidence would be admissible. See 9/29/2008 Order, ECF No.  (dismissing Plaintiff's age, race, and gender discrimination claims).
B. Evidence Regarding Disabilities Not Pled in the First Amended Complaint
Second, the Defendant moves to exclude any evidence regarding the Plaintiff's disabilities beyond that alleged in the First Amended Complaint, namely, " pain in his knees and shoulders," and temporary numbness in his hands. The Plaintiff contends that there is no heightened pleading requirement for ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims, and that he is entitled to introduce evidence regarding additional disabilities brought out during discovery. The Court lacks sufficient information in the present record to rule on the Defendant's motion. Therefore, the ...