Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Court of Appeals should remand to the District Court instead of engaging in its own evidentiary analysis
• holding that “evidence of discrimination by other supervisors” is neither “per se admissible [nor] per se inadmissible” in federal age discrimination cases
• holding that it was improper for the court of appeals to make its own determination as to whether evidence regarding discrimination by others should have been admitted under Rules 401 and 403
• recognizing that other evidentiary rules also “require[] . . . fact-intensive, context- specific inquir[ies]”
• noting that a district court may abuse its discretion by applying a “per se rule” to exclude evidence without considering the “facts and arguments in [the] particular case”
• explaining that evidence of discrimination experienced by other witnesses may be relevant based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).