2/28/08
In a decision released earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on whether an employee may prove her age discrimination claim by presenting evidence that the employer also discriminated against other employees. Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn. The unanimous answer: it depends.
In her federal age discrimination lawsuit against Sprint/United Management Co., Ellen Mendelsohn sought to introduce testimony from five other employees, none of whom worked in her department or reported to the same managers, that they too witnessed or experienced age discrimination. The company filed a motion with the district court, asking it to exclude this "me too" evidence as irrelevant to Mendelsohn's claims and unfairly prejudicial. The district court agreed, holding that Mendelsohn could not introduce her "me too" evidence at trial because the other employees were not "similarly situated" to Mendelsohn. Mendelsohn lost at trial, but appealed the jury's verdict to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the court should have allowed the other employees to testify. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit ruled 2-1 that Mendelsohn was entitled to a new trial because the district court should have allowed her to present her "me too" evidence to the jury. The company appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Circuit overstepped its authority by ruling Mendelsohn's "me too" evidence admissible. That decision, according to the Supreme Court, is to be left to the discretion of the district court, and cannot be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. However, in exercising its discretion, the district court must not apply a per se rule that "me too" evidence will always be either admissible or inadmissible. Rather, it must conduct a "fact-intensive, context-specific" inquiry to decide whether the evidence is relevant, and whether its "probative value" outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the employer. Finding that the record was unclear as to whether the district court conducted such an analysis before ruling Mendelsohn's "me too" evidence inadmissible, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court, instructing it to clarify its ruling.
The Court's decision in this case is at best a limited victory for employers. While it upholds district courts' authority to limit the admissibility of "me too" evidence of discrimination, it provides district judges with little guidance about when such evidence should be excluded. Consequently, employers are certain to face further litigation over this issue, not only in cases filed under the Age Discrimination In Employment Act, but also under other federal employment discrimination laws such as Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
