Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn

• Decision Date: 26 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. 06–1221.,06–1221.
• Citation: 75 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 973,90 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43105,08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2329,128 S.Ct. 1140,552 U.S. 379,2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2793,21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 93,76 USLW 4107,102 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1057,170 L.Ed.2d 1
• Parties: SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., Petitioner, v. Ellen MENDELSOHN.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2329

102 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1057

128 S.Ct. 1140

170 L.Ed.2d 1

2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2793

21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 93

552 U.S. 379

75 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 973

76 USLW 4107

90 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,105

SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., Petitioner,

v.Ellen MENDELSOHN.

No. 06–1221.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Dec. 3, 2007.Decided Feb. 26, 2008.

Syllabus ^*

In respondent Mendelsohn's age discrimination case, petitioner Sprint moved in limine to exclude the testimony of former employees alleging discrimination by supervisors who had no role in the employment decision Mendelsohn challenged, on the ground that such evidence was irrelevant to the case's central issue, see Fed. Rules Evid. 401, 402, and unduly prejudicial, see Rule 403. Granting the motion, the District Court excluded evidence of discrimination against those not “similarly situated” to Mendelsohn. The Tenth Circuit treated that order as applying a per se rule that evidence from employees of other supervisors is irrelevant in age discrimination cases, concluded that the District Court abused its discretion by relying on the Circuit's Aramburu case, determined that the evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, and remanded for a new trial.

Held: The Tenth Circuit erred in concluding that the District Court applied a per se rule and thus improperly engaged in its own analysis of the relevant factors under Rules 401 and 403, rather than remanding the case for the District Court to clarify its ruling. Pp. 1144 – 1147.

(a) In deference to a district court's familiarity with a case's details and its greater experience in evidentiary matters, courts of appeals uphold Rule 403 rulings unless the district court has abused its discretion. Here, the Tenth Circuit did not accord due deference to the District Court. The District Court's two-sentence discussion of the evidence neither cited nor gave any other indication that the decision relied on Aramburu or suggested that the court applied a per se rule of inadmissibility. Neither party's submissions to the District Court suggested that Aramburu was controlling. That court's use of the same “similarly situated” phrase that Aramburu used cannot be presumed to indicate adoption of Aramburu's analysis, for the District Court was addressing a very different kind of evidence here. And the nature of Sprint's argument was not that the particular evidence was never admissible, but only that such evidence lacked sufficient probative value in this case to be relevant or outweigh prejudice and delay. Pp. 1144 – 1147.

(b) Because of the Tenth Circuit's error, it went on to assess the relevance of the evidence itself and conduct its own balancing of probative value and potential prejudicial effect when it should have allowed the District Court to make these determinations in the first instance, explicitly and on the record. 1146 – 1147.

466 F.3d 1223, vacated and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Paul W. Cane, Jr., San Francisco, CA, for petitioner.

Gregory G. Garre, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court.

Dennis E. Egan, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.Chris R. Pace, Overland Park, KS, John J. Yates, Mark G. Arnold, Christine F. Miller, James F. Monafo, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Paul W. Cane, Jr., Counsel of Record, Katherine C. Huibonhoa, Heather N. Mitchell, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.Eric Schnapper, School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Dennis E. Egan, Counsel of Record, The Popham Law Firm, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this age discrimination case, the District Court excluded testimony by nonparties alleging discrimination at the hands of supervisors of the defendant company who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals, having concluded that the District Court improperly applied a per se rule excluding the evidence, engaged in its own analysis of the relevant factors under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, and remanded with instructions to admit the challenged testimony. We granted certiorari on the question whether the Federal Rules of Evidence required admission of the testimony. We conclude that such evidence is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible. Because it is not entirely clear whether the District Court applied a per se rule, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for the District Court to conduct the relevant inquiry under the appropriate standard.

I

Respondent Ellen Mendelsohn was employed in the Business Development Strategy Group of petitioner Sprint/United Management Company (Sprint) from 1989 until 2002, when Sprint terminated her as a part of an ongoing company-wide reduction in force. She sued Sprint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. , alleging disparate treatment based on her age.

In support of her claim, Mendelsohn sought to introduce testimony by five other former Sprint employees who claimed that their supervisors had discriminated against them because of age. Three of the witnesses alleged that they heard one or more Sprint supervisors or managers make remarks denigrating older workers. One claimed that Sprint's intern program was a mechanism for age discrimination and that she had seen a spreadsheet suggesting that a supervisor considered age in making layoff decisions. Another witness was to testify that he had been given an unwarranted negative evaluation and “banned” from working at Sprint because of his age, and that he had witnessed another employee being harassed because of her age. App. 17a. The final witness alleged that Sprint had required him to get permission before hiring anyone over age 40, that after his termination he had been replaced by a younger employee, and that Sprint had rejected his subsequent employment applications.

None of the five witnesses worked in the Business Development Strategy Group with Mendelsohn, nor had any of them worked under the supervisors in her chain of command, which included James Fee, Mendelsohn's direct supervisor; Paul Reddick, Fee's direct manager and the decisionmaker in Mendelsohn's termination; and Bill Blessing, Reddick's supervisor and head of the Business Development Strategy Group. Neither did any of the proffered witnesses report hearing discriminatory remarks by Fee, Reddick, or Blessing.

Sprint moved in limine to exclude the testimony, arguing that it was irrelevant to the central issue in the case: whether Reddick terminated Mendelsohn because of her age. See Fed. Rules Evid. 401, 402. Sprint claimed that the testimony would be relevant only if it came from employees who were “similarly situated” to Mendelsohn in that they had the same supervisors. App. 156a. Sprint also argued that, under Rule 403, the probative value of the evidence would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, and undue delay.

In a minute order, the District Court granted the motion, excluding, in relevant part, evidence of “discrimination against employees not similarly situated to plaintiff.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a. In clarifying that Mendelsohn could only “offer evidence of discrimination against Sprint employees who are similarly situated to her,” the court defined “ ‘[s]imilarly situated employees,’ for the purpose of this ruling, [as] requir[ing] proof that (1) Paul Ruddick [sic] was the decision-maker in any adverse employment action; and (2) temporal proximity.” Ibid. Beyond that, the District Court provided no explanation of the basis for its ruling. As the trial proceeded, the judge orally clarified that the minute order was meant to exclude only testimony “that Sprint treated other people unfairly on the basis of age,” and would not bar testimony going to the “totally different” question “ whether the [reduction in force], which is [Sprint's] stated nondiscriminatory reason, is a pretext for age discrimination.” App. 295a–296a.

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit treated the minute order as the application of a per se rule that evidence from employees with other supervisors is irrelevant to proving discrimination in an ADEA case. Specifically, it concluded that the District Court abused its discretion by relying on Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398 (C.A.10 1997). 466 F.3d 1223, 1227–1228 (C.A.10 2006). Aramburu held that “[s]imilarly situated employees,” for the purpose of showing disparate treatment in employee discipline, “are those who deal with the same supervisor and are subject to the same standards governing performance evaluation and discipline.” 112 F.3d, at 1404 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Appeals viewed that case as inapposite because it addressed discriminatory discipline, not a company-wide policy of discrimination. The Court of Appeals then determined that the evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, and reversed and remanded for a new trial. We granted certiorari, 551 U.S. ––––, 127 S.Ct. 2937, 168 L.Ed.2d 261 (2007), to determine whether, in an employment discrimination action, the Federal Rules of Evidence require admission of testimony by nonparties alleging discrimination at the hands of persons who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff.

II

The parties focus their dispute on whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403. We conclude, however, that the Court of Appeals should not have engaged in that inquiry. Rather, as explained below, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the District Court applied a per se rule. Given the circumstances of this case...