McDaniel v. Rural King Holdings, LLP et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD WILLIAM MCDANIEL, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-1237
:
Plaintiff : (Judge Neary)
:
v. :
:
RURAL KING HOLDINGS, LLP :
d/b/a RURAL KING and RK :
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC :
d/b/a RURAL KING, :
:
Defendants :
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is defendants’ Rural King Holdings, LLP d/b/a Rural King and
RK Administrative Services, LLC d/b/a Rural King’s (collectively “Rural King”)
motion in limine (Doc. 49) to limit evidence of back pay damages. Plaintiff Richard
McDaniel opposes the motion. (Doc. 51). The motion has been briefed (Docs. 50; 51)
and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, Rural King’s motion in
limine shall be denied.
I. Factual Background & Procedural History
McDaniel worked for Rural King for just over one year before Rural King
terminated his employment on February 1, 2024. (Doc. 11 ¶ 13). Following his
discharge, he brought claims alleging violations of Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana
Act, wrongful termination, and wrongful discharge. (Id.). During his employment at
Rural King, he earned approximately $680.00 per week. (Doc. 49. ¶ 2). McDaniel
found employment at Wendy’s, earning approximately $660.00 per week beginning
Case 1:24-cv-01237-KMN Document 63 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
around February 21, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4). He worked at Wendy’s from February 2024 to
January 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4). At his deposition, he explained he left because Wendy’s
was not a good fit for him. (Id. ¶ 7). In January 2025, he began working at Pizza Hut,
where he earned approximately $300.00 per week. (Id. ¶ 6).
II. Legal Standard
The district court is given “wide latitude in deciding what should be allowed
into evidence.” United States v. Romano, 849 F.2d 812, 815 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing
Compliant of Bankers Trust Co., 752 F.2d 874, 899-90 (3d. Cir. 1984)). One such
method is a motion in limine. A motion in limine is a pretrial action to narrow
evidentiary issues in order to streamline the presentation of evidence at trial and
avoid unnecessary interruptions. Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064,
1069 (3d Cir. 1990). However, courts should be cautious in granting a motion in
limine. Evidence should only be excluded if it is clearly inadmissible on all potential
grounds. Holmes v. Am. Home Patient/Lincare, No. 4:21-CV-01683, 2024 WL
1118982, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2024) (citing United States v. Ramsey, No. CR 19-
268, 2021 WL 4554642, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2021)). The movant has the burden of
showing the evidence is inadmissible. Id.
III. Discussion
Rural King argues McDaniel willingly took a lower paying job, thereby failing
to mitigate his damages, and any back pay should be limited to the salary he could
have earned at the higher paying job. (Doc. 50 at 4-6). McDaniel argues the duty to
Case 1:24-cv-01237-KMN Document 63 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
mitigate is a factual issue best left for the jury and Rural King has not proved his
failure to mitigate as a matter of law. (Doc. 51 at ECF 6-9).
A wrongfully terminated employee is entitled to a remedy that makes him
whole. Parks v. Pennsylvania Hum. Rels. Comm’n, 848 A.2d 204, 209 (Pa. Cmwlth.
Ct. 2004). He also has a duty to mitigate his damages by seeking alternative
employment. Willever v. Sovereign Bank, 42 Pa. D. & C.4th 562, 570 (Pa. Com. Pl.
1998) (citing Starceski v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 54 F. 3d 1089 (3d Cir. 1995)).
The defendant bears the burden of showing the plaintiff failed to mitigate his
damages. Id. Whether the plaintiff has met his duty to mitigate his damages is a
question of fact. Scott v. Blossburg Borough, No. 4:21-CV-1985-WIA, 2025 WL
679046, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2025).
Here, the facts concerning McDaniel’s mitigation efforts are not clear enough
to grant the motion in limine. Rural King points to Holocheck v. Luzern County Head
Start, Inc. for the proposition that a plaintiff fails to mitigate damages if he willfully
declines all earnings, but McDaniel’s case is distinguishable. No. 3:CV-04-2082, 2007
WL 954308, at *15 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2007). The plaintiff in Holocheck only worked
for two or three months in total following her termination and took no action towards
securing employment in her field. Id. In the two years since his termination,
McDaniel was only out of work for six weeks. (Doc. 49-2 at ECF 2-3). As such, he has
not willfully failed to work following his termination.
Additionally, while McDaniel changed employment during those two years, it
is not clear from the record whether either job constituted the substantially
Case 1:24-cv-01237-KMN Document 63 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
equivalent employment to which he is entitled. See, e.g., Holocheck, No. 3:CV-04-
2082, 2007 WL 954308, at *13 (citing Booker, 64 F. 3d at 864)). The Third Circuit has
held an employee may satisfy his duty to mitigate damages by voluntarily taking a
lower-paying job if that job has better working conditions that more closely matches
his previous employment conditions. Donlin v. Philips Lighting N. Am. Corp., 581
F.3d 73, 89 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting NLRB v. Madison Courier, Inc., 472 F.2d 1307,
1320–21 (D.C.Cir.1972)) (finding that a plaintiff need not accept work that is
substantially more onerous than her previous employment and thus did not fail to
mitigate her damages by voluntarily leaving a higher-paying job for a lower-paying
job closer to her home). The question of whether McDaniel was justified in taking the
lower-paying position is thus a question for the jury to determine.
Accordingly, Rural King’s motion in limine is denied. An appropriate order
shall issue.
/S/ KELI M. NEARY
Keli M. Neary
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: October 14, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-01237-KMN Document 63 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 4