|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Sprint/United Management Co. v. MendelsohnBaker Hostetler LLP - April 11, 2008 In a unanimous decision on February 26, 2008, in the case Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, the United States Supreme Court held that a trial court can permit a plaintiff employee to introduce evidence that other employees have also experienced discrimination, provided that the testimony—also known as “me too” evidence—is relevant to the case and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of its prejudicial effect before the jury. In so ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that “me too” evidence is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible but, rather, the trial court must make a determination weighing the evidence's relevance, probative value, and prejudicial effect. Report Link Supreme Court Refuses to Bar Co-Workers’ “Me, Too” Testimony in Discrimination Cases.Phelps Dunbar LLP - March 07, 2008 On February 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Ellen Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221. Employers had hoped that the case would provide a categorical rule barring so-called "me, too" testimony-that is, testimony offered by a plaintiff's co-workers who are not parties to the suit, claiming discrimination by different supervisors who had no role in the challenged employment decision. Instead, the Supreme Court held that trial court judges have discretion to admit or exclude such testimony, depending on the particular facts of the case. The Court's decision is problematic for employers, because it leaves open the door to inflammatory, hard-to-refute testimony by disgruntled co-workers in employment discrimination cases. Report Link Supreme Court Holds "Me Too" Evidence May Be Admissible to Prove Discrimination.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 06, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its unanimous opinion in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221 (Feb. 26, 2008) concerning whether a plaintiff alleging discrimination can rely on alleged evidence of discrimination from employees not supervised by plaintiff's supervisor or manager. The Supreme Court unanimously held that such "me too" evidence could be admissible depending upon the circumstances. Report Link Supreme Court Issues Ruling on “Me Too” Evidence.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - March 06, 2008 The Supreme Court announced its decision on the admissibility of so called “me too” evidence. “Me too” evidence refers to testimony by other employees describing their own experiences of discriminatory treatment by the same employer. From an employer’s perspective, this type of evidence makes discrimination trials longer, more expensive, and harder to defend. Report Link Supreme Court Punts In "Me Too" Case.Ogletree Deakins - March 04, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn. This case raises the important issue of whether so-called "me too" evidence can be introduced in employment discrimination litigation. The high court failed to answer this question, however, deferring to district courts to evaluate whether the probative value of such evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect.
Report Link Supreme Court Holds That "Me Too" Evidence May Be Admissible (pdf).Vedder Price - February 28, 2008 A recurrent issue in employment discrimination cases is whether “me too” evidence—testimony by other employees that they have been discriminated against by supervisors who did not make the decision being challenged by the plaintiff—can be introduced to prove discrimination against the plaintiff. Report Link Supreme Court Rejects Categorical Treatment of 'Me, Too' Evidence in Age Discrimination Cases.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - February 28, 2008 On February 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the closely watched case of Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, holding that no per se rule categorically permits or bars evidence of discrimination by other company supervisors completely unrelated to a plaintiff's age discrimination lawsuit.
The plaintiff in Mendelsohn filed suit under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging that her employment was terminated on the basis of her age. In support of her claim, the plaintiff sought to introduce testimony from Sprint employees who witnessed discriminatory remarks and conduct by Sprint supervisors or who personally were alleged victims of age discrimination. The witnesses worked in different departments than the plaintiff and had different supervisors. Sprint filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the testimony of these witnesses under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, which prohibit evidence deemed irrelevant, and Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which grants judges the discretion to exclude evidence that, while relevant, creates a substantial risk of unfair prejudice. Report Link Supreme Court Issues Ruling on “Me Too” Evidence.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - February 28, 2008 The Supreme Court announced its decision on the admissibility of so called “me too” evidence. “Me too” evidence refers to testimony by other employees describing their own experiences of discriminatory treatment by the same employer. From an employer’s perspective, this type of evidence makes discrimination trials longer, more expensive, and harder to defend. Report Link Supreme Court Rules on “Me Too” Evidence of Discrimination.Ford & Harrison LLP - February 28, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that testimony by non-parties to a lawsuit claiming they were subject to discrimination by individuals other than those accused in the lawsuit is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible. See Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn (February 26, 2008). In Sprint, the Court held that the relevance and prejudice of this evidence must be determined in the context of the facts and arguments in a particular case.
In this case, Mendelsohn claimed she was chosen for discharge during a reduction in force (RIF) because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). At trial, she sought to introduce the testimony of other former employees who claimed they were subjected to age discrimination while they were employed by Sprint. However, none of these employees worked in the same business unit as Mendelsohn and none claimed to have been subjected to discrimination by any of the supervisors in Mendelsohn’s chain of command, including the individual who made the decision to discharge her. Report Link Supreme Court Issues Non-Decision on "Me Too" Evidence.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - February 27, 2008 Today the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Sprint v. Mendelsohn reinforcing its long standing rule that district courts are afforded wide discretion on evidentiary matters. Practitioners were disappointed that the Court provided little, if any, guidance on the substantive issue before it. Instead the decision focuses more on the deference that appellate courts must give to the decisions of lower federal district courts, and holds only that admission of "me too" evidence is fact based and "depends on many factors...." Report Link Supreme Court Rules Admissibility of "Me, Too" Evidence Not Susceptible to Broad Per Se Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 27, 2008 The United States Supreme Court reversed a decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver addressing the admissibility of testimony of non-party former employees alleging discrimination by supervisors who played no role in the action challenged by the plaintiff to show that discrimination against older workers pervaded the workplace and to persuade jurors that plaintiff's layoff also was discriminatory. Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221 (Feb. 26, 2008). The Supreme Court's February 26 decision primarily focused on procedural issues and faulted the Tenth Circuit with improperly assuming that the District Court's exclusion of the evidence amounted to a per se bar without first remanding the case back to the lower court for clarification regarding the intended scope of its exclusion. Report Link Two Recent Cases Underscore that Stray Remarks of Discrimination Can Lead to Huge Jury Verdicts.Phelps Dunbar LLP - January 11, 2008 Two recent Fifth Circuit cases make clear that stray remarks of a supervisor and/or corporate officer can lead to exorbitant jury verdicts in favor of employees alleging discrimination. In Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Healthcare Inc., 493 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2007) the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the employer on appeal. Although the jury had awarded a female plaintiff alleging pregnancy discrimination back pay, compensatory damages and a million dollars in punitive damages, the district court granted the employer's motion for judgment of a matter of law, finding insufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict. Report Link Ninth Circuit Decision Imputes Subordinate Employee’s Unlawful Bias To Employer If Subordinate Influenced Or Was Involved In Decision-Making Process (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2007 In Poland v. Chertoff, James Poland, a long-standing employee of the U.S. Customs Service based in Portland, Oregon, complained of age discrimination against his supervisor, Gary Hillberry. Report Link 'Cat’s Paw' fable becomes legal doctrine to support subordinate bias liability (pdf).Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP - July 10, 2007 Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of an important Tenth
Circuit case involving the “Cat’s Paw” doctrine. This theorymakes a company liable for discrimination when it relies on the comments of a biased supervisor when taking an adverse employment action against an employee. This discrimination theory is now the law for the states covered by the Federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Colorado. The case has important lessons for those involved in making employment termination decisions. Report Link Supreme Court Will Weigh In on Evidence Used to Show Discrimination In Layoff.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 28, 2007 The United States Supreme Court has agreed on June 11, 2007, to review a federal appeals court decision in Denver requiring trial courts to allow testimony of non-party former employees alleging discrimination by supervisors who played no role in the action challenged by the plaintiff to show that discrimination against older workers pervaded the workplace and to persuade jurors that plaintiff's layoff also was discriminatory. Report Link Decisionmakers: Independently Investigate Reports of Employee Misconduct from Lower-Level Managers (pdf).Vedder Price - August 04, 2006 Reports of employee misconduct from a manager
without authority to impose discipline are considered by some employers to be a risk-free basis for
disciplining the employee. The decisionmaker need
only show that he reasonably believed the manager’s
report and acted accordingly. Whatever bias may
have prompted the manager to act is not imputed to
the decisionmaker unless he knows of the bias. Report Link United States Supreme Court Holds Plant Manager’s Occasional Reference to African American Employees as "Boy" Potentially Probative of Discriminatory Intent (pdf).Phelps Dunbar LLP - May 16, 2006 Two African American employees filed suit under Title VII
and Section 1981, alleging race discrimination arising from nonpromotions.
The plaintiffs were superintendents at a Tyson Foods
owned and operated poultry plant. They had sought promotions
to fill the two shift manager positions, but two white males had
been selected. Plaintiffs then filed suit in the Northern District
of Alabama. The jury returned a verdict for both plaintiffs. Report Link Stray Remarks Do Not Result In Liability [PDF File, p.2].Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP - April 30, 2003 In Carter v. Newman Memorial County Hospital, a federal court of appeals addressed two related issues regarding stray remarks. Report Link Teacher's Bias Claim Based on "Unreliable" Statistical Evidence Rejected.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 15, 2002 The Seventh Circuit upheld a ruling in favor of a school district where the plaintiff's expert statistical witness failed to use reliable statistics to show bias. Report Link When a Senior Company Executive Speaks, Everybody Listens . . . (Even the Judge!).Pepe & Hazard LLP - June 06, 2001 Discusses Slattery v. Swiss Re America Co., Docket No. 00-7787 (2d Cir. May 3, 2001), in which the court held that a statement from a top executive in the corporate hierarchy can be enough to establish an initial claim of discrimination — that is to raise an inference of discrimination sufficient to shift the burden of explanation onto the [employer].
|
ArticlesFound: 20 ArticlesSUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AT WORK (AB 1234 COMPLIANCE)
Sacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPPreventing Wage/Hour Class Actions.Online
May 13, 2008 LittlerHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPHow to Stay Union FreeLas Vegas
2008-5-13 Jackson Lewis LLPConducting Effective Investigations of Employment Claims: Essential Skills for Internal InvestigatorsHouston
May 13, 2008 Littler2008 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Universal City
May 13, 2008 Ballard RosenbergSHRM Morris County Monthly Legal UpdateFlorham Park
2008-5-14 SHRM Morris County ChapterThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-5-14 Jackson Lewis LLPDigital Dangers: Recent E-Discovery Developments and TrendsLas Vegas
May 14, 2008 LittlerHealth Care's New Labor and Privacy Law Frontiers: Defusing Tomorrow's Problems TodayDenver
May 14, 2008 Littler |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds