Cochenour v. Cameron Savings & Loan, F.A.

Facts

P contends that she was fired from her job in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Missouri Human Rights Act. D claims that it fired P after two customers complained to D's president that P and another employee were spreading rumors in the bank about the customers' sexual orientation. Shortly after P and the other employee, Beth McDonald were fired McDonald received a job offer from P's attorney, who had given legal advice to the bank regarding its decision to terminate the two employees. P maintains that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the job offer. She argues that the jury could have inferred from this job offer that D never had any real intention of depriving McDonald of employment and that its stated reason for firing P was pretextual. P also maintains that the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding a conversation in which D's president allegedly told an employee that she could not continue to work for D because she had become pregnant. The alleged conversation occurred more than 10 years before P's termination. P contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a letter that P wrote to D after her termination, in which she stated that she had been planning to retire at age 50. Because the letter included a settlement demand, P maintains that it was inadmissible because of Rule 408, which provides that an offer to compromise 'is not admissible to prove liability for or the invalidity of the claim or its amount.' The rule, however, 'does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose.' P claims the firing was pretextual, and that she was terminated because of her age and her health problems. D got the verdict and the trial court denied P's motion for a new trial.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.