Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)

Citation: Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Parent Document: Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-03-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/231/quigley-v-winter/ ↗

Full Text

842 chars

In Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (2008), the Supreme
Court considered the admissibility of so-called “me too” evidence in an employment
discrimination case. The Court determined such evidence was neither per se
admissible nor per se inadmissible. See id. at 386-88. Rather, “[t]he question whether
evidence of discrimination [against other employees] by other supervisors is relevant
in an individual ADEA case is fact based and depends on many factors, including how
closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case.”
Id. at 388. The Court also observed, “In deference to a district court’s familiarity with
the details of the case and its greater experience in evidentiary matters, courts of
appeals afford broad discretion to a district court’s evidentiary rulings.” Id. at 384.

Other Sections in This Document (232)

Full Text