Supreme Court rules in age discrimination case
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1195644005.jpg|width="120" height="118" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court has left the door open for workers in age discrimination cases to present supporting evidence from other employees at a company. In a unanimous decision Tuesday, the justices ruled that federal courts cannot block so-called "me too" evidence of age-discrimination without a more complete explanation than the one a judge gave in the case of Ellen Mendelsohn. Mendelsohn was a 51-year-old midlevel manager who sued after she was discharged from Sprint headquarters in Overland Park, Kan. The ruling was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
A federal jury in Kansas City, Kan., ruled against Mendelsohn after a judge excluded the testimony of five ex-employees from other departments at Sprint headquarters who claimed they had been released because of their age. Lawyers refer to such testimony as "me, too" evidence.
Sprint let Mendelsohn go in 2002 amid companywide layoffs that eventually numbered more than 14,000. She was part of the company's business development strategy group, which was scaled back from 75 employees to 57.
The supervisor who laid off Mendelsohn said she was the weakest performer in his unit.
Sprint's lawyers argued in Supreme Court that if a different supervisor at a company harbors bias, that's unfortunate, but it is not relevant to the claim by the person who filed the lawsuit. Sprint argued that such information unfairly prejudices a jury against a company.
The Bush administration took a middle ground between Sprint and Mendelsohn, saying evidence of age bias is sometimes admissible when it is committed by other supervisors at the same company. It cited as an example another supervisor dismissing an employee, saying the company is on a youth campaign.
In Mendelsohn's case, none of the five employees who would have testified on her behalf was laid off by Mendelsohn's supervisor and none worked in her business development group. The five were laid off as many as nine months before Mendelsohn and as many as three months after.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver sent the case back for a new trial, saying the testimony of the five ex-employees supported an alleged companywide age discriminatory scheme.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court Takes Indian Land Case
Lawyer Blogs 02/25/2008[##_1L|1232233377.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court agreed Monday to resolve a dispute over the federal government's ability to take land into trust for American Indian tribes. Indian rights groups fear that the case involving...
-
NYPD Trio Set for Trial in Groom's Death
Lawyer Blogs 02/25/2008On the morning of her wedding day, Nicole Paultre Bell learned her groom-to-be was dead.Sean Bell, who had been spending his last night as a single man partying, was killed in a barrage of 50 police bullets outside a strip club.The three police offic...
-
NYC Court Rejects Agent Orange Claims
Lawyer Blogs 02/24/2008[##_1L|1078779507.jpg|width="127" height="85" alt=""|_##]A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an effort by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange to reinstate claims that U.S. companies committed war crimes by making the toxic chemical defoliant us...
New York Commercial Litigation Law Firm - Woods Lonergan PLLC
Founded in 1993 by Managing Partner James F. Woods, Woods Lonergan PLLC has built a strong reputation as a resourceful and industrious firm that provides clients with clear, concise, and straightforward answers to their most challenging legal issues. Partner Lawrence R. Lonergan, who joined the firm in 2008, has been a friend and colleague to Mr. Woods for over 40 years and shares the same business philosophy. Woods Lonergan PLLC’s collective experience and expertise enables the firm to expeditiously and effectively analyze the increasing challenges clients face in an evolving business and legal world, in many instances, avoiding unnecessary time and expense to our clients. Our mission is simple: provide cutting-edge expertise and sound advice in select areas of the law for corporate and business clients. We thrive on providing each client with personalized attention, forceful representation, and a collaborative team effort that embraces collective knowledge.