# Orlando v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · December 29, 2004 · 117 F. App'x 165

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8430306

## Case

- **Full name:** Linda ORLANDO v. State of NEW YORK WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Robert B. Williams, Carl Sofia, Eileen Lacy, William Keegan and Thomas R. Coyne
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** December 29, 2004
- **Citations:** 117 F. App'x 165
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Katzmann, Newman, Pooler
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8430306

## Opinion text

SUMMARY ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Dis *166 trict Court’s civil judgment be AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Linda Orlando appeals from a civil judgment, dated August 14, 2003, dismissing all of her employment discrimination and retaliation claims following an adverse jury verdict. Orlando appeals several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.
This court reviews the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and we will only reverse if our refusal to do so is “inconsistent with substantial justice.” Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 381 F.3d 56 , 76 (2d Cir.2004). Orlando’s three main arguments are that the district court abused its discretion when: (1) it allowed into evidence Orlando’s yearly employment evaluations and counseling memoranda from as far back as 1989; (2) it allowed into evidence a May 13, 1993 grievance decision that denied Orlando’s complaint about not receiving certain assignments; and (3) it excluded Orlando’s evidence that her locker at work had been vandalized and robbed in 1999. We have reviewed the record, and find that the district court’s evidentiary decisions were not an abuse of discretion or “inconsistent with substantial justice.”
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8430306. Public record. Not legal advice.