During argument in a closely watched employment case against Sprint, the Supreme Court justices on Monday seemed reluctant to find that a district court must admit so-called “me, too” evidence in an age discrimination case. In particular, several of the justices questioned a federal circuit court’s authority to second-guess a trial court’s evidentiary decisions, and expressed concern that requiring a court to admit “me, too” evidence would create confusion and prolong trials.

In Sprint v. Mendelsohn, one of several high-profile employment cases onthe Court’s docket this term, the trial court barred evidence of similar alleged acts of discrimination against other Sprint employees who worked for different supervisors.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]