Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn
Mendelsohn sued her employer, Sprint, for allegedly selecting her to be laid-off because of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). During the trial, the district court excluded the testimony of other former Sprint employees who alleged similar discrimination during the same period. The district court ruled that any testimony not related to the actions of Mendelsohn's direct supervisor was irrelevant. Mendelsohn appealed, arguing that the testimony of the other employees helped show the pervasive atmosphere of age discrimination at Sprint.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the exclusion of such evidence unfairly inhibited Mendelsohn from presenting her case to the jury. The district court had improperly applied the "same supervisor rule," which only applies to cases of discriminatory disciplinary action by a supervisor. The Tenth Circuit declined to extend this rule to the alleged victim of a discriminatory company-wide policy.
Question Presented
Whether a district court must admit "me, too" evidence -- testimony, by nonparties, alleging discrimination at the hands of persons who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff.
