## Facts

- Retha Weems worked in Tyson’s poultry operations and received multiple promotions; in 2005 she became plant manager at Tyson’s Monett, Missouri facility and received strong performance ratings from her supervisor.
- Tyson’s Noel, Missouri plant experienced serious production and food-safety compliance problems, including USDA Notices of Intended Enforcement threatening suspension if violations were not corrected.
- Tyson asked Weems to take over as plant manager at Noel; senior managers reassured her the move would not end her career and agreed to her conditions, including structural changes, a two-year timeline, and a significant pay increase.
- After Weems began managing Noel, she alleged she was treated differently than male managers and that her supervisors displayed discriminatory attitudes toward women in management.
- Tyson later eliminated Weems’s position and placed her on a 30-day administrative leave to find another internal position, after which her employment would end if she did not secure one.
- Weems told Tyson’s HR manager that she was being treated unfairly and had been discriminated against because of her gender; HR did not investigate further and instead sent her a draft separation agreement offering roughly a month of pay and benefits, which she did not sign.
- Weems sued Tyson in federal court for gender discrimination under Title VII and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act; the district court admitted the separation agreement and related testimony over Tyson’s Federal Rule of Evidence 408 objection.
- A jury found for Weems, and the district court entered judgment of approximately $708,994; Tyson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 by admitting a draft separation agreement as compromise evidence offered to prove Tyson’s liability for gender discrimination.
2. If admission was error, whether it materially prejudiced the jury’s verdict, requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by admitting the separation agreement because it was a compromise offer concerning a disputed claim within Rule 408.
- The court held the error was not harmless because the compromise evidence likely materially influenced the verdict, including demonstrated jury focus on the agreement during deliberations.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 408 bars admission of compromise offers and negotiations when offered to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, including when offered to prove liability.
- A “disputed claim” for Rule 408 purposes can exist before litigation where an employee has asserted discrimination to the employer and the employer responds with a proposal aimed at resolving that asserted grievance.
- Erroneous admission of settlement-related evidence warrants a new trial when the record indicates the evidence likely affected the jury’s decision.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit ordered a new trial after concluding that a draft separation agreement, offered to prove discrimination liability, was inadmissible compromise evidence under Rule 408 and that its admission materially prejudiced the jury’s verdict.


Weems v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 665 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2011)