No per se rule on “me too” discrimination evidence
In employment discrimination suits, evidence of discriminatory conduct by company managers who supervised other employees, but not the plaintiff, is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today.
In the opinion in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the “question whether evidence of discrimination by other supervisors is relevant in an individual ADEA case is fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and the theory of the case.”
The Court vacated the ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding so-called “me too” evidence. The Court’s decision can be found here.
