Extremely Important Discrimination Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court Next Week
Posted by Mark S. Spring
On December 3, 2007, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, a federal age discrimination lawsuit. The primary issue in the case is whether or not, and to what extent, trial courts should admit so called "me-too" evidence in age discrimination cases.
Simply stated, "me-too" evidence is evidence that other individuals were also discriminated against by the same employer. "Me-too" evidence is present in most discrimination actions and, in some cases, the plaintiff places great reliance on substantial "me-too" evidence in proving discriminatory motive. In Sprint/United, plaintiff Mendelsohn was laid off as part of a Reduction in Force (RIF) and claims that she was chosen for this RIF because of her age. In an attempt to help prove that age was a factor in her case, Mendelsohn seeks to admit evidence that five other former Sprint employees were also chosen for a RIF because of their age. Significantly, these individuals were supervised by different supervisors than Mendelsohn. The trial court excluded the evidence and the jury ruled for Sprint. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the evidence admitted; Sprint then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In jury trials of all types of discrimination lawsuits, "me-too" evidence, when admitted, is often very influential. Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that without this evidence, the jury is not getting the complete picture, and that it constitutes key circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive that the jury must be entitled to weigh for itself. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, argue that the evidence is highly prejudicial, and leads to extended discovery and lengthy trials that encompass numerous unrelated discrimination claims and results that are often based on facts that are not connected to the actual plaintiff's situation.
Currently, there is no clear guidance under federal or California law on whether such evidence is admissible and, if so, what factors should be considered in deciding admissibility. As a result, there is little predictability on what trial courts will do with such evidence and trial judges' rulings on motions in limine to exclude this evidence are all over the map. This causes a number of significant problems in cases where substantial "me-too" evidence is present. First, it is very difficult to predict the length and cost of trial in such cases because, if the "me-too" evidence is allowed, a two week trial can quickly turn into a two month trial. In addition, preparing for trial can be difficult because the scope of testimony and number of witnesses and documents is often substantially greater when "me-too" evidence is admitted. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to successfully defend a discrimination case with "me-too" evidence is almost always highly dependent on the motion in limine ruling on its admissibility, making it much more difficult to assess a case for settlement and likelihood of success at trial when there is really no way to predict how a trial judge will rule on this key issue.
Because there is little guidance in this area of the law, most labor and employment attorneys, including this one, believe that it is very likely that the ultimate ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Sprint/United will likely be used by trial judges in all types of federal and California discrimination cases (FEHA, Title VII, ADA, etc.) as key precedent to assess the admissibility of "me-too" evidence. If the United States Supreme Court uses Sprint/United to set forth a standard rule on when to admit "me-too" evidence, we will finally have greater predictability in this area of the law and, ultimately, greater predictability on trial costs, trial length, and lawsuit results in many discrimination cases. Of course, the real key is what standard the Court decides to use. If the Court adopts a strict standard – holding that such evidence is not admissible without some direct connection to the specific adverse action at issue in the lawsuit – then trials will be shortened and simplified, discovery will be more limited, settlement values will be reduced, and employers will likely be more comfortable going to trial. If, however, the Court holds that "me-too" evidence is generally admissible and should be left to the lawyers to argue and the jurors to decide whether such evidence relates to the alleged discriminatory decision forming the basis of the plaintiff's lawsuit, then we should expect a rise in the number of discrimination lawsuits, substantially longer and more complicated trials, higher settlements and more discrimination verdicts for plaintiffs with higher dollar amounts.
Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn is a case we will want to follow during this Supreme Court term. Please contact us directly to discuss any questions you have regarding the effect the Court's review of this issue may have on your workplace.