Law Center Search Results

In a unanimous decision on 2/26/08, the Supreme Court held that there is no per se rule requiring a court either to admit or exclude testimony about discriminatory acts by company supervisors who played no role in the alleged age discrimination against the plaintiff. Rather, admissibility questions should be determined by the trial court. This case involved an employee who lost her job in a reduction in force (RIF), with the normal rule in disparate treatment cases being that acts by other company supervisors are not relevant. However, the appeals court made an exception where the lawsuit is over a company-wide RIF, and ruled that evidence of the company's treatment of other older workers in the RIF is relevant to the issue whether the company had a discriminatory animus, or attitude, toward older workers. The Supreme Court found that this second-guessing of the trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence was improper in this disparate treatment case, and sent the case back so that the trial court could clarify that it did not exclude the evidence without good reason. This decision is important because it allows a trial court to determine whether evidence of discrimination not directly related to a case may be admitted.