Justices Express Skepticism in a Discrimination Case
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: December 4, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04scotus.htmlWASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Beneath the surface of a Supreme Court argument on Monday in a case of job-related age discrimination was a surprising question: has the Supreme Court drifted so far toward the employer’s side in job discrimination cases that it is now to the right of the Bush administration?
The case concerned whether an employee can seek to prove discrimination by offering what is sometimes known as “me too” or “other supervisor” evidence, testimony from other employees who also claim to have suffered discrimination under similar circumstances, but at the direction of different supervisors.
<<snip>>
In this case, the federal appeals court in Denver ordered a new trial after a jury had rejected a woman’s argument that her dismissal at age 51 in a reduction in force was a result of age discrimination. The Federal District Court had refused to permit the plaintiff, Ellen Mendelsohn, to present testimony from five other employees who lost their jobs in the same reduction and who claimed age discrimination. Like Ms. Mendelsohn, three of the would-be witnesses were also replaced by younger workers.
<<snip>>
But several justices, perhaps a majority, appeared more inclined to agree with the employer that such evidence was never admissible, or at least that there should be a strong presumption against admissibility. They questioned the relevance of evidence supposedly showing what had happened to employees other than the plaintiff and suggested that it might require “minitrials” to test the validity of these accusations.
<<snip>>
Although this case, Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221, concerns age bias, the court’s eventual ruling will also govern cases about workplace discrimination based on race and sex.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
