Horinek v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
J. GREG HORINEK, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	CIVIL ACTION
)
v. 	) 	No. 24-1171-KHV
)
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.’s Motions In Limine
And Memorandum In Support (Doc. #85) filed November 14, 2025. For reasons stated below, the
Court sustains defendant’s motion in part.
In paragraph 1 of defendant’s motion, defendant seeks to exclude evidence related to
“OSHA’s investigation, findings, and determination” which were set forth in the agency’s
dismissal letter dated August 30, 2024. Defendant seeks to exclude the letter under Rule 403, Fed.
R. Evid., and as hearsay. The OSHA letter appears to reflect “factual findings from a legally
authorized investigation,” so it likely falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R.
Evid. 803(8). Even so, under Rule 403, the Court has discretion in deciding whether to admit
EEOC or other agency determinations into evidence. See Nulf v. Int’l Paper Co., 656 F.2d 553,
563 (10th Cir. 1981) (EEOC determinations). For substantially the reasons stated in defendant’s
motion, the Court finds that the OSHA letter should be excluded, because the probative value of
the evidence is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues or
Case 6:24-cv-01171-KHV Document 111 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

-2-
misleading the jury.1 Fed. R. Evid. 403; see Tuffa v. Flight Servs. & Sys., Inc., 644 F. App’x 853,
855–56 (10th Cir. 2016) (district court did not abuse discretion when it excluded EEOC report
because jury might be “overly influenced” by report and EEOC applied different standard of proof
than standard to be applied by jury); Hall v. W. Prod. Co., 988 F.2d 1050, 1058 (10th Cir. 1993)
(district court did not abuse discretion when it excluded agency finding of no discrimination on
ground that report would “suggest to the jury that it should reach the same conclusion” as agency).
Because plaintiff does not oppose defendant’s requests in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of
defendant’s motion, the Court sustains defendant’s motion in this regard.
The Court will instruct the jury on what constitutes protected whistleblowing, and an order
in limine on this issue would not be helpful. 	Therefore, the Court overrules the request in
paragraph 5 of defendant’s motion to exclude arguments and evidence that do not qualify as
protected whistleblowing.
The Court overrules the request in paragraph 6 to exclude evidence concerning Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion initiatives which defendant argues are irrelevant. 	The jury will decide
whether such initiatives motivated defendant to terminate plaintiff’s employment, in whole or in
part.
Assuming that plaintiff is able to establish a prima facie case for punitive damages, the
Court overrules the request in paragraph 7 of defendant’s motion, regarding the financial condition
of defendant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.’s Motions In
1 	Plaintiff argues that the Court’s exclusion of the OSHA letter should not foreclose
plaintiff from presenting the recordings of OSHA interviews with defendant’s managers about
plaintiff’s termination and testimony from plaintiff’s labor arbitration proceedings. 	Because
defendant has not sought to exclude such evidence, the Court does not address plaintiff’s argument.
Case 6:24-cv-01171-KHV Document 111 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

-3-
Limine And Memorandum In Support (Doc. #85) is SUSTAINED as to the requests in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of defendant’s motion and OVERRULED as to the requests in
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2025 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-01171-KHV Document 111 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3