US Supreme Court broadens scope of permissible evidence for proving discrimination; Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn; 2/26/08

US Supreme Court Feb­ru­ary 26, 2008: The Unit­ed States Supreme Court hand­ed down its opin­ion in Sprint/United Man­age­ment Co. v. Mendel­sohn, 128 S. Ct. 1140 (2008) (Find­Law site opin­ion). The issue in this fed­er­al age dis­crim­i­na­tion case (ADEA) was whether the plain­tiff could present evi­dence to the jury about oth­er alleged old­er dis­crim­i­na­tion vic­tims, where the deci­sion made to ter­mi­nate the oth­er indi­vid­u­als was not made by the same deci­sion-mak­er that ter­mi­nat­ed the plaintiff.

The employ­er (Sprint) con­tend­ed that evi­dence of oth­er alleged age dis­crim­i­na­tion vic­tims was not admis­si­ble where the deci­sion-mak­ers for those oth­er vic­tims were dif­fer­ent from the deci­sion-mak­ers who took action against the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court reject­ed the employ­er’s argu­ment and said that the evi­dence of oth­er vic­tims might be admis­si­ble, even if dif­fer­ent deci­sion-mak­ers were involved. The tri­al court should con­duct a “bal­anc­ing test” for admis­si­bil­i­ty of dis­crim­i­na­tion against oth­er employ­ees by dif­fer­ent super­vi­sors, where the rel­e­vance of the oth­er employ­ees’ sit­u­a­tion is bal­anced against unfair prej­u­dice to the employer.

Drew M. Capuder
Fol­low me:
Lat­est posts by Drew M. Capud­er (see all)

2 thoughts on “US Supreme Court broadens scope of permissible evidence for proving discrimination; Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn; 2/26/08”

  1. Age dis­crim­i­na­tion? I admit.…I’m not a lawyer, how­ev­er, I DO have some expe­ri­ence in human behav­ior and I am very curious.…..How does some­one “prove beyond a rea­son­able doubt” that they were not able to obtain (or per­haps main­tain) a par­tic­u­lar type of employ­ment becuase they were too old? It seems to me that cor­po­rate Amer­i­ca is wise to the laws in place to pro­tect the employ­ee and if they thought some­one was too old to take on (or keep) they would­n’t just say that. Or would they? Expe­ri­ence in any posi­tion is under rat­ed. For instance: If you go to the emer­gency room with with chest pain, do you want the nurse that grew old while car­ing for oth­ers with chest pain or do you want the new grad­u­ate nurse to see to your needs? If you find your­self in need of a pub­lic defend­er, do you want one that has been to the plate sev­er­al times, or do you want to be the first for the new­er ( prob­a­ble younger) attor­ney the court could appoint you? These exam­ples could go on with infi­nite scene­r­ios. Why isn’t expe­ri­ence con­sid­ered an asset and even if you DON’T get the job because you are no longer wet behind the ears, how do you prove that?

  2. I am not a lawyer, but I don’t under­stand how the defense could even begin to argue that age dis­crim­i­na­tion was not the issue because one com­pa­ny indi­vid­ual did not do all the ter­mi­na­tions. Com­mon sense would tell one that a com­pa­ny is gen­er­al­ly struc­tured in such a way that senior man­age­ment, or a board of direc­tors, is aware whom is being let go from employe­ment and receives approval via HR before pre­sent­ing the axe, so to speak.

Leave a Reply