Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 MARCH 2008

Per Se Rules Regarding "Me Too" Evidence Rejected

In Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, the Supreme Court held that "me too" evidence of discrimination is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible in an age discrimination lawsuit, and trial courts are required to engage in a balancing test to determine whether such evidence should be admitted.

United StatesEmployment and HR

In Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, the United State Supreme Court held that "me too" evidence of discrimination is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible in an age discrimination lawsuit, and trial courts are required to engage in a balancing test to determine whether such evidence should be admitted.

The plaintiff in Sprint sought to introduce testimony from five other employees who claimed that they also had been discriminated against on the basis of their age. However, none of the five employees worked in plaintiff’s department, nor worked under plaintiff’s supervisors, and none of them heard any discriminatory remarks from plaintiff’s supervisors. The employer moved to exclude the evidence as irrelevant.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from