The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in an age discrimination case that testimony by nonparties alleging discrimination at the hands of supervisors who played no role in the discriminatory acts challenged in the lawsuit was neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible. Instead, the Supreme Court held that admissibility must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is within the discretion of the District Court. Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221, February 26, 2008.
Ellen Mendelsohn sued Sprint under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In support of her claim, she sought to introduce testimony by five former Sprint employees who also claimed age discrimination even though none worked in Mendelsohn’s group or under the supervisors in her chain of command. Moreover, none of those witnesses heard any discriminatory remarks from Mendelsohn’s supervisors. Before the trial, Sprint moved to exclude the testimony, arguing that it was irrelevant to the central issues in the case because the employees were not similarly situated to Mendelsohn and the testimony would cause unfair prejudice. The District Court excluded the evidence and ruled that Mendelsohn could offer only evidence of discrimination against...
