From EEOC v. Whirlpool Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50844 (M.D. Tenn. June 15, 2009):

This is a Title VII action alleging sexual and racial hostile work place harassment. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Intervenor Plaintiff Carlota Freemen ("Freemen") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that Willie Baker ("Baker"), Freemen's co-worker, sexually and racially harassed Freemen at Defendant Whirlpool Corporation for a period of two to three months, culminating in a physical assault on Freemen.... Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant was aware of Baker's conduct toward Freemen because Freemen and others made repeated complaints to Freemen's supervisor, Charlie Fisher ("Fisher"). Plaintiffs allege that Fisher took no remedial action. In response, Defendant claims that there is no evidence of any sexual or racial harassment, and furthermore no evidence that Defendant was aware of any such harassment. ***

Defendant argues that the Court should not consider evidence regarding Whirlpool's termination of Freemen's supervisor, Charlie Fisher..., in conjunction with its decision in this case. Defendant argues that this evidence is irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, and that the Court should decline to consider it given the Court's discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b).

The evidence relating to Fisher's termination is as follows: on July 30, 2004, Whirlpool terminated Fisher ... on the basis of a Whirlpool investigation, which found that Fisher: (1) submitted inaccurate production counts and (2) circumvented quality and safety procedures.... Fisher's termination occurred approximately three months after Freemen stopped working at Whirlpool, but according to Whirlpool's investigation of Fisher, the conduct for which Fisher was terminated was ongoing during the period of Freemen's employment with Whirlpool from January to March of 2004....Rule of Evidence 608(b) states that:

Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' character for truthfulness . . . may, . . . in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross examination of the witness.

Under Rule of Evidence 607,

The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness . . . .

It is thus indisputable that Plaintiffs are entitled to attack Fisher's credibility on the stand, regardless of whether Plaintiffs or Defendant call him. Furthermore, it is within the Court's discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence pertaining to Fisher's termination.

Defendant argues that this Court should bar evidence of Fisher's termination because the circumstances of Fisher's termination are disputed, such that any evidence pertaining to his termination would be more prejudicial than probative, would result in jury confusion, and would cause undue delay.

The Court disagrees. What is undisputed is that Whirlpool terminated Fisher because it was convinced that Fisher had engaged in a pattern of behavior that was untruthful and in violation of Whirlpool's standards for quality and safety. At issue in the present case is whether Freemen reported alleged instances of racial and sexual harassment to Fisher, and if so, what Fisher did about it. There is competing testimony on this point — Fisher denied knowledge of racial or sexual harassment, and asserted that he took appropriate measures to combat Freemen's complaints. Fisher's credibility is thus paramount. That Fisher has a track record — generated by Defendant — of self-serving dishonesty, coupled with reckless disregard for safety protocol, is both relevant and highly probative to the Court's resolution of this case. Accordingly, the Court will consider any evidence pertinent to Whirlpool's termination of Fisher as elicited in the course of Fisher's testimony at trial.