<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Drew Capuder's Employment Law Blog &#187; Evidence issues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/index.php/category/evidence-issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog</link>
	<description>By Drew M. Capuder, Capuder Fantasia PLLC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>US Supreme Court broadens scope of permissible evidence for proving discrimination; Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn; 2/26/08</title>
		<link>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2008/03/us-supreme-court-broadens-scope-of-permissible-evidence-for-proving-discrimination-sprintunited-management-v-mendelsohn-22608/</link>
		<comments>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2008/03/us-supreme-court-broadens-scope-of-permissible-evidence-for-proving-discrimination-sprintunited-management-v-mendelsohn-22608/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Drew Capuder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Result for Employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/?p=18</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[February 26, 2008: The United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 128 S. Ct. 1140 (2008) (FindLaw site opinion). The issue in this federal age discrimination case (ADEA) was whether the plaintiff could present evidence to the jury about other alleged older discrimination victims, where the decision made [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="US Supreme Court, home page, official site" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px" title="US Supreme Court" border="0" alt="US Supreme Court" align="right" src="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/USsupremeCourtRight.jpg" width="184" height="244" /></a> February 26, 2008: The <a title="United States Supreme Court. home page" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/">United States Supreme Court</a> handed down its opinion in <a title="Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 128 S. Ct. 1140 (2008), on Supreme Court site" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1221.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn</em></a>, 128 S. Ct. 1140 (2008) (<a title="Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 128 S. Ct. 1140 (2008), on Findlaw site" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=06-1221">FindLaw site opinion</a>). The issue in this federal <a title="Age discrimination, Drew Capuder&#39;s Employment Law Blog" href="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/category/age-discrimination-type-of-discrimination/">age discrimination</a> case (<a title="Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 USC 621, full text on EEOC web site" href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html">ADEA</a>) was whether the plaintiff could present evidence to the jury about other alleged older discrimination victims, where the decision made to terminate the other individuals was not made by the same decision-maker that terminated the plaintiff.</p>
<p>The employer (Sprint) contended that evidence of other alleged age discrimination victims was not admissible where the decision-makers for those other victims were different from the decision-makers who took action against the plaintiff.</p>
<p> The Supreme Court rejected the employer&#8217;s argument and said that the evidence of other victims might be admissible, even if different decision-makers were involved. The trial court should conduct a &quot;balancing test&quot; for admissibility of discrimination against other employees by different supervisors, where the relevance of the other employees&#8217; situation is balanced against unfair prejudice to the employer.
</p>
<p>Prepared by <a title="Drew M. Capuder&#39;s bio page at Capuder Fantasia PLLC" href="http://www.capuderfantasia.com/capuder.html">Drew M. Capuder</a> (<a title="Contact information for Drew M. Capuder, and Capuder Fantasia PLLC" href="http://www.capuderfantasia.com/contactus.html">contact information</a>); Voice 304-333-5261</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2008/03/us-supreme-court-broadens-scope-of-permissible-evidence-for-proving-discrimination-sprintunited-management-v-mendelsohn-22608/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.306 seconds -->
