Torres v. County of Oakland
758 F.2d 147 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness's opinion testimony is inadmissible as an unhelpful legal conclusion if it is phrased using terms that have a separate, distinct, and specialized meaning in the law different from that in the common vernacular.
Facts:
- Belen Torres, a Filipino woman and a United States citizen, was employed by the County of Oakland as a casework supervisor.
- At a meeting in February 1980, Torres' supervisor, Norbert Birnbaum, referred to her as an 'ass' or 'asshole'.
- Torres' six-month performance evaluation was unilaterally downgraded in the 'attendance' category from 'outstanding' to 'average', while seven other categories remained 'outstanding'.
- In 1980, the Oakland Community Mental Health Services Board created a new supervisory position for which Torres applied.
- Torres was not promoted to the new position.
- The defendants stated they hired an external candidate to fill the position to mitigate a high degree of internal dissension among employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Belen Torres filed an employment discrimination suit against the County of Oakland and the Oakland Community Mental Health Services Board in federal district court.
- During the trial, the district court admitted, over objection, a defense witness's opinion testimony that she did not believe Torres had been discriminated against.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The district court denied the defendants' subsequent motion for attorney's fees.
- Torres, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The defendants, as appellees, cross-appealed the district court's denial of their motion for attorney's fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lay witness's opinion testimony that a plaintiff was not 'discriminated against because of her national origin' constitute an inadmissible legal conclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701?
Opinions:
Majority - Contie, Circuit Judge
Yes. A lay witness's opinion on whether a plaintiff was 'discriminated against' is an inadmissible legal conclusion. While Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits opinion testimony on an ultimate issue, Rule 701 still requires the opinion to be 'helpful' to the jury. Testimony that uses a legal term of art, such as 'discriminate,' is not helpful because it conveys the witness's potentially erroneous legal standards to the jury, thereby invading the province of the court to instruct the jury on the law. The court reasoned that the best test is to determine if the terms used have a specialized legal meaning different from their vernacular use. Because 'discriminate' has a precise legal meaning under Title VII that differs from its lay use, the testimony was an improper legal conclusion. However, the court found its admission in this case was harmless error because the plaintiff herself had previously stated in a deposition that she did not feel discriminated against during the interview process.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundary between permissible lay opinion testimony on an ultimate issue under FRE 704 and an impermissible legal conclusion barred by FRE 701. It establishes a practical framework for trial courts to exclude opinions phrased in legal terms of art, particularly in complex areas like discrimination law. The decision guides litigators to frame questions to lay witnesses using factual, everyday language (e.g., 'was the decision motivated by her national origin?') rather than legal terminology ('was it discrimination?'). This reinforces the jury's role as the finder of fact and the judge's role as the sole source of legal instruction, preventing witnesses from usurping those functions.
Unlock the full brief for Torres v. County of Oakland