Sprint/united Management Company v. Ellen Mendelsohn (552 U.S. 379)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 26, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 552 U.S. 379 · 128 S. Ct. 1140
- Decided
- February 26, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. In this age discrimination case, the District Court excluded testimony by nonparties alleging discrimination at the hands of supervisors of the defendant company who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals, having concluded that the District Court improperly applied a per se rule excluding the evidence, engaged in its own analysis of the relevant factors under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, and remanded with instructions to admit the challenged testimony. We granted certiorari on the question whether the Federal Rules of Evidence required admission of the testimony. We conclude that such evidence is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible. Because it is not entirely clear whether the District Court applied a per se rule, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for the District Court to conduct the relevant inquiry under the appropriate standard. I Respondent Ellen Mendelsohn was employed in the Business Development Strategy Group of petitioner Sprint/ United Management Company (Sprint) from 1989 until 2002, when Sprint terminated her as a part of an ongoing companywide reduction in force. She sued Sprint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., alleging…
Excerpt of a 15,069-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.