## Facts

- Debera Cochenour worked for Cameron Savings and Loan, F.A.
- Cameron discharged Cochenour and a coworker, Beth McDonald, after two customers complained they spread rumors about the customers’ sexual orientation.
- Cochenour claimed the stated reason was pretext and that she was terminated because of age and health problems, asserting claims under the ADA, ADEA, and Missouri Human Rights Act.
- After the terminations, Cameron’s attorney (who had advised Cameron on the decision) allegedly offered McDonald a job; Cochenour sought to introduce this as circumstantial evidence of pretext.
- Cochenour wrote Cameron a post-termination letter stating she had been planning to retire at age 50; the district court admitted the letter.
- The district court limited plaintiff’s closing argument to prevent counsel from explaining the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework beyond the court’s instructions.
- Cochenour admitted participating in discussions about the customers’ sexual orientation.
- A jury returned a verdict for Cameron, and the district court denied Cochenour’s motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Cameron’s attorney offered McDonald a job after the terminations, and whether any error required a new trial.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Cochenour’s letter stating she planned to retire at age 50.
3. Whether the district court improperly restricted closing argument by preventing counsel from explaining the McDonnell Douglas framework to the jury.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Cameron and the denial of a new trial.
- The exclusion of the attorney’s job-offer evidence was not reversible error; even assuming error, its probative value was minimal and any inference of pretext was weak.
- Admission of the retirement-intention letter fell within the district court’s discretion and was not unfairly prejudicial.
- Limiting closing argument to prevent counsel from instructing the jury on legal doctrine was within the court’s control of trial proceedings, given that the court provided the governing instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Evidentiary and trial-management rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Even if evidence is wrongly excluded, reversal is unwarranted unless the appellate court has no reasonable assurance the verdict would have been the same absent the error.
- Trial courts may exclude marginally probative circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive where the proponent lacks connecting proof and the inference is speculative.
- Under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded based on probative value and risk of unfair prejudice; admission of a party’s letter about retirement plans may be relevant to damages or expected duration of employment.
- Courts may restrict closing arguments to prevent counsel from presenting legal instruction to the jury; the judge is responsible for stating the law through jury instructions.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a defense verdict in an ADA/ADEA/MHRA termination case, holding that the challenged exclusion of weak pretext evidence, admission of the plaintiff’s retirement letter, and limits on closing argument were discretionary trial rulings that were not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial.


Cochenour v. Cameron Sav. & Loan, F.A., 160 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir. 1998)