relevance | Legal Information Institute

Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn

Issues

When an employee sues her employer for discriminatory treatment under federal statute, should courts exclude testimony from other employees who allegedly suffered similar discrimination at the company, but did not work under the same supervisor?

Court below

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

In her Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) suit against Sprint, Ellen Mendelsohn sought to use the testimony of other Sprint employees who claimed to have experienced age discrimination at Sprint. This evidence falls into the category sometimes called "me too" testimony, because the employees did not share a supervisor with Mendelsohn and were not parties in Mendelsohn's litigation. The district court rejected the "me too" testimony, interpreting a past Tenth Circuit ruling to mean that testimony of other employees was admissible only if the other employees worked under the same supervisor and were fired around the time Sprint fired Mendelsohn. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the same-supervisor requirement only applied in discriminatory discipline actions, not in cases like Mendelsohn involving allegations of company-wide discrimination.� Currently, four circuits hold that "me too" evidence is irrelevant and thus inadmissible, while another five circuits hold that such evidence is excludable at the discretion of the court. The Tenth Circuit's holding departs from both of these views. By deciding Sprint v. Mendelsohn, the Supreme Court will resolve this circuit split regarding "me too" evidence. The Court's decision will affect the ability of employees to prove company-wide discrimination. Its ruling will be particularly important because it will apply not only to ADEA, but also to suits brought under a range of federal anti-discrimination statutes.�

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

This case presents a recurring question of proof in employment discrimination cases: whether a district court must admit "me, too" evidence - testimony, by nonparties, alleging discrimination and the hands of persons who played no rule in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff.�

The Tenth Circuit panel majority held that a court commits reversible error by excluding "me, too" evidence.� This decision conflicts with those of other circuits.� Specifically, four circuits have held "me, too" evidence wholly irrelevant.� Five circuits have held that "me, too" evidence may be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.� Granting certiorari will resolve the conflict between the circuit courts of appeals on this important question of law.�

Additional Resources

Submit for publication

Read more about Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn