## Facts

- Jonathan Polo-Echevarría worked as a hospital clerk for Corporación Puertorriqueña de Salud (CPS) in Puerto Rico.
- Joaquín Rodríguez-Benítez, Polo-Echevarría’s supervisor, allegedly sent Polo-Echevarría sexually explicit text messages and invitations using anonymous accounts.
- Polo-Echevarría claimed he later discovered Rodríguez-Benítez was behind the anonymous messages and complained about the conduct.
- After the complaint, CPS terminated Polo-Echevarría’s employment.
- Polo-Echevarría and his father, Claudio Polo-Calderón, sued CPS and Rodríguez-Benítez in federal court, asserting sexual-harassment claims under Title VII (and related claims).
- During discovery, defendants obtained information about Polo-Echevarría’s sexuality and his private texting relationships and communications with other men.
- Defendants filed a motion in limine stating their intent to introduce that information at trial, arguing it was relevant to (i) Polo-Echevarría’s credibility and character, (ii) identifying the user behind the anonymous accounts, and (iii) whether Polo-Echevarría welcomed the alleged conduct.

## Issues

1. In a Title VII sexual-harassment case, does Federal Rule of Evidence 412 apply to bar evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition?
2. If Rule 412 applies, did defendants show that the probative value of the proposed evidence substantially outweighed the danger of harm to the plaintiff and unfair prejudice, as required by Rule 412(b)(2)?

## Decision

- The court treated the case as a civil action involving alleged sexual misconduct and applied Federal Rule of Evidence 412.
- The court denied defendants’ motion in limine to introduce evidence about Polo-Echevarría’s private sexual life (including private same-sex texting relationships and related communications).
- The court ruled the proposed evidence was, at most, minimally probative of the disputed issues and carried a substantial risk of embarrassment, harm, and unfair prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 412 applies in civil cases involving alleged sexual misconduct, including workplace sexual-harassment claims.
- In a civil case, evidence offered to prove a victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition is not admissible unless its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the victim and unfair prejudice to any party. (This is a stricter balance than Rule 403.)
- A plaintiff’s private, consensual sexual communications or relationships with third parties generally do not make it more likely that the plaintiff welcomed alleged harassing conduct by a supervisor at work.
- Evidence about sexual orientation or private sexual activity is not properly used as a general credibility or character attack when Rule 412 applies.
- Courts may exclude such evidence to prevent the trial from turning into an inquiry into the complainant’s sexual past, particularly where the evidence risks juror bias and distracts from whether workplace harassment occurred.

## Conclusion

In *Polo-Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorriqueña de Salud*, the District of Puerto Rico denied defendants’ attempt to introduce evidence about the plaintiff’s sexuality and private texting relationships with other men. Applying Rule 412’s heightened civil-case standard, the court found the evidence had little value on the contested questions (including identity, credibility, and welcomeness) and posed a serious risk of harm and unfair prejudice, so it was excluded.


Polo-Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorriqueña de Salud, 992 F. Supp. 2d 53 (2014)