WILLIAMS v. TULINO et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BASEEMAH WILLIAMS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW
)
DOUGLAS TULINO Acting Postmaster
General,
)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiff Baseemah Williams, a former employee of the U.S. Postal
Service, sued the Postmaster General for assault, retaliatory discharge,
wrongful termination, and for hostile environment harassment based on her
race and age. The Court entered summary judgment for the Defendant on all
claims and Ms. Williams appealed. Dkt. 122. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the
Court's summary judgment order except for Ms. Williams' claim that she was
subjected to a racially hostile work environment at the Carmel Post Office,
which the Court vacated and remanded. Dkt. 138 (USCA Mandate). The
Defendant has filed four Motions in Limine, dkt. 159, and Plaintiff filed an
objection, dkt. 164.
Motions in limine are designed to “streamline trials and settle evidentiary
disputes in advance, so that trials are not interrupted mid-course for the
consideration of lengthy and complex evidentiary issues.” United States v.
Tokash, 282 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2002). Courts “have broad discretion in
ruling on evidentiary questions during trial or before on motions in limine.”
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). 	Still,
orders in limine are preliminary and "subject to change when the case unfolds"
because actual testimony may differ from a pretrial proffer. 	Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). 	A trial judge does not bind himself by ruling on
a motion in limine and "may always change his mind during the course of a
trial." 	Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000).
I.
Ms. Williams's objection to the Motions in Limine
Ms. Williams did not respond to the specific evidentiary issues raised in
Defendant's motions, but instead filed an objection, arguing that "[p]utting
stipulations on what I can and can't say is taking away my freedom of speech."
Dkt. 164 at 1. 	The Court has a duty to ensure that only evidence with
probative value to the issue presented in the case is admitted and presented to
the jury. 	As such, pursuant to its inherent authority, the Federal Rules of
Evidence, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may rule that certain
evidence and arguments are inadmissible. 	Therefore, to the extent that Ms.
Williams's response is an objection to Defendant's Motion in Limine, that
objection is OVERRULED.
II.
Defendant's Motions in Limine
1. Evidence regarding Ms. Williams's dismissed claims
Defendant seeks to exclude evidence "regarding claims that have been
dismissed, and which dismissal was affirmed on appeal." 	Dkt. 160 at 3. 	This
includes Ms. Williams' claims that she was: (1) discriminated against because
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of her age; (2) terminated for retaliatory reasons; (3) wrongfully terminated; and
(4) assaulted by another employee. 	See dkt. 138 at 4–5 (USCA Mandate). 	The
Seventh Circuit made clear that only one claim remained to be resolved on
remand: "that the Postal Service created a racially hostile work environment at
Carmel." 	Id. at 5.
Evidence related to dismissed claims are not relevant and therefore is
inadmissible. 	See Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R. Evid. 402; Barnes v. General
Motors LLC, 2023 WL 3436098, No. 4:20-cr-00087-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind. May
12, 2023). 	Defendant's motion is therefore GRANTED. 	Ms. Williams is
prohibited from (i) introducing evidence related to her dismissed claims; and (ii)
referencing those dismissed claims through argument and/or questions. 	While
it's conceivably possible that one or more specific facts related to a dismissed
claim could be probative to some aspect of Ms. Williams's racial hostile work
environment claim, Ms. Williams has not made such showing. 	If during trial
Ms. Williams has a good faith reason to believe that some evidence related to
the dismissed claims is probative to the jury's resolution of the hostile work
environment claim, she must raise the issue outside of the jury's presence
during a break or by asking for a sidebar.
2. Evidence regarding the prior conduct of or other allegations against
the Postal Service workers
Next, Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of Postal Service Witnesses'
"conduct before or after the events at issue in the Complaint." 	Id. at 4. 	This
includes "complaints made against the witnesses by other employees, other
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
lawsuits filed by other former or current Postal Service employees, any
employment discipline previously imposed on the witnesses, and any prior
arrests or convictions of the witnesses." 	Dkt. 160 at 4. 	At the final pretrial
conference, Ms. Williams stated that she may wish to introduce evidence
related to prior cases filed against the Defendant's witnesses to show that the
Defendant's witnesses acted in a racially hostile manner in the past and that
they have the characteristics of acting in that manner.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1), "[e]vidence of a crime, wrong,
or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show
that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character." 	But the evidence may be admitted “for another purpose, such as
proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” 	Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
Here, Ms. Williams wants to introduce evidence of Postal Service
employees' other bad acts for the very purpose that is prohibited: "the person's
character or propensity to behave a certain way." 	United States v. Gomez, 763
F.3d 845, 860 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that the relevance of 404(b)
evidence to another purpose must be established through a chain of reasoning
that does not rely on the forbidden inference that the person has a certain
character and acted in accordance with that character on the occasion charged
in the case.).
Defendant's motion in limine is therefore GRANTED. 	Ms. Williams is
prohibited from: (i) introducing evidence of Postal Service employees' other "bad
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
acts"; and (ii) referencing those acts through argument and/or questions. 	If
during trial Ms. Williams has a good faith reason to believe that such evidence
is admissible for a purpose permitted under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2), she may
raise that issue with the Court outside the presence of the jury. 	See Manuel v.
City of Chicago, 335 F.3d 592, 597 (7th Cir. 2003) ("Other-acts evidence may be
relevant and admissible in a discrimination case to prove, for example, intent
or pretext.").
3. Evidence of out of court statements
Third, Defendant seeks to exclude the introduction of "statements,
correspondence, and declarations purporting to be from other Postal Service
employees . . . [and] hand-written statements [Ms. Williams] created purporting
to include statements from other employees or recounting her recollections of
events." 	Dkt. 160 at 5–6. 	At the conference, Ms. Williams stated that she may
introduce handwritten statements relating to the facts of the case and attesting
to her character.
Hearsay is "a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while
testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." 	Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
"Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies."
United States v. Wehrle, 985 F.3d 549, 555 (7th Cir. 2021).
Here, the Postal Service employees' handwritten statements are
inadmissible hearsay because they were produced outside of court, and Ms.
Williams's purpose for offering them into evidence is to prove the truth of the
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
matter contained within the statements—her character and the facts of the
case. 	Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). 	Further, the statements do not appear to fall into
the exceptions of "present sense impressions," Fed. R. Evid. 803(1) or "then-
existing mental, emotional, or physical condition," Fed. R. Evid. 803(3). 	See
Schindler v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008, 1011 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that to be a
present-sense impression "the statement must have been made while the
speaker was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter"); Fed.
R. Evid. 803(3) (stating that statements "of memory or belief to prove the fact
remembered or believed" are not statements of the declarant's "then-existing
state of mind"). 	Defendant's motion in limine is therefore GRANTED. 	Ms.
Williams is prohibited from introducing evidence of out of court statements to
prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statements. 	If at trial Ms.
Williams has a good faith reason to believe that a statement is admissible
because of an exception to the hearsay rules, she may raise that issue with the
Court outside of the presence of the jury.
4. Evidence not produced during discovery
Last, Defendant seeks to exclude evidence that was not produced in
discovery by Plaintiff. 	Dkt. 160 at 7–8. 	Specifically, Defendant seeks to
exclude evidence relating to an alleged audio recording of a conversation from a
meeting between Ms. Williams and the Postal Service witnesses, Julia Dunn
and Lisa Dalton. 	Id. at 8. 	Although requested by Defendants during discovery,
Ms. Williams did not produce the recording because she was unable to locate
the cellphone the conversation was recorded on. 	Id.
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Under Federal Rule Evidence 403, "the court may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one
or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."
Here, evidence of the recording and its content would have some probative
value as evidence of what was said in the conversation between Ms. Williams
and the Postal Service witnesses. 	However, any probative value of the evidence
is diminished by the fact that Ms. Williams, Julia Dunn, and Lisa Dalton can
testify at trial as to the statements made during the conversation. 	Further,
evidence of the recording's contents could invite the danger of a mini trial as to
whether the recording exists, why it was not produced, and its contents which
would lead to confusion of the issues, undue delay, and waste of time. 	See
Fed. R. Evid. 403; Henderson v. Wilkie, 966 F.3d 530, 538 (7th Cir. 2020)
(District Courts are "on solid ground" in excluding confusing evidence based on
concerns that it would create "a trial within a trial.").
Defendant's motion is therefore GRANTED. 	Ms. Williams may not
reference the audio recording during argument or questioning at trial.
Similarly, the Defendant is to ensure that the Postal Service witnesses do not
reference the recording. 	However, the parties are permitted to introduce
testimony pertaining to their personal knowledge about observations,
conversations, and occurrences during the meeting.
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
III.
Conclusion
Defendant's Motion in Limine is GRANTED. 	Dkt. [159]. 	To the extent
that Ms. William's response to Defendant's motion was an objection, that
objection is OVERRULED. 	Dkt. [164].
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
BASEEMAH WILLIAMS
526 North Ave East
Apt. #101
Westfield, NJ 07090
All electronically registered counsel.
Date: 1/20/2026
Case 1:22-cv-02267-JPH-CSW Document 171 Filed 01/20/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>