Cases

Plaintiff sued employer for allegedly retaliating against him for filing a workers’ compensation claim, a violation of Section 440.205, Florida Statutes. In order to prove the allegations, plaintiff sought testimony from other witnesses as to how supervisors had unjustly terminated employees in other instances. Supposedly misconduct had occurred at other employer locations. The witnesses had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s termination in this instance. Such evidence was introduced at the time of the trial. Post-jury award of damages, judge granted new trial concluding that the evidence of termination in other instances was prejudicial to the defendant, thus warranting the granting of the new trial. Plaintiff appealed. Court determined that appellate review of an order granting a motion for a new trial is based on an abuse of discretion standard.

 

The determination of relevancy of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Where a trial court has weighed the probative value of evidence against the prejudicial impact before reaching his decision to admit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. A trial court’s discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence, however, is limited by the rules of evidence and applicable case law.

 

To be relevant, evidence must tend to prove or disprove a material fact. Section 90.401, Florida Statutes. Court determined in this instance that evidence of prior misconduct by employees of employer occurring some thirteen years before the events alleged as the basis of the cause of action in this case were not relevant. The trial court correctly noted that unconnected acts that were too remote in time, place and purpose were not considered relevant. The testimony was also inadmissible as improper character or propensity evidence. Section 90.404(1), Florida Statutes, provides that evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion. The lower court also determined that in accordance with Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, even if relevant, the evidence was inadmissible because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Dissenting opinion.