|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 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.
|
ArticlesFound: 12 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
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