(SCOTUS) Case-by-Case Ruling on Discrimination

[maddezmom]

Source: NYT

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: February 27, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a closely watched job discrimination case that allegations that a plaintiff’s co-workers had also suffered discrimination, offered as evidence of a biased corporate culture, may be admissible in court — some of the time.

At the same time, the justices said that such evidence should be kept out of court — some of the time.

The unanimous decision, in an age-discrimination case against Sprint/Nextel, did not answer the bottom-line question in the case: whether five co-workers of the plaintiff, Ellen Mendelsohn, should have been allowed to testify. All had lost their jobs in the same reduction in force and claimed, as she did, to be victims of age discrimination.

But the way the court analyzed the case, in a somewhat cryptic nine-page opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, may prove more significant in the long run than the absence of a specific answer.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/27scotus.html?ref=washington

[pattmarty]

1. Evidently the "some of the time" rule will be the mark of the Roberts court.

[Supersedeas]

3. some of the times means -- allow the partisan judges use their 'discretion' AND

the Neo-Cons on the Court will tell those liberal judge when they are wrong.

[Deny and Shred]

2. "Some of the time" translation, the ruling that helps the Conservative cause

[seriousstan]

4. Has anyone replying to the OP read the article? Unanimous decision...and for good reason.

This is a win for the little guy.

"The appeals court was correct to reject a categorical rule of exclusion if that was in fact what the district court invoked, Justice Thomas said. In vacating the appeals court’s decision, the justices ordered the district court to “clarify the basis for its evidentiary ruling.”

While technically a victory for the employer, because an adverse ruling was vacated, the decision is likely to prove more favorable in the long run to discrimination plaintiffs. That is because many lower courts, taking an approach similar to that of the Kansas district court, have been dismissing cases, granting summary judgment to employers on the ground that co-workers’ testimony, which often provides the strongest proof of a pattern of discrimination, is inadmissible.

Under the Supreme Court’s case-by-case approach, plaintiffs will have a greater chance of surviving summary judgment and getting their cases before a jury.

“It’s a big deal that portends a real change,” Eric Schnapper, a law professor at the University of Washington who was one of Ms. Mendelsohn’s lawyers, said Tuesday. Because juries are often sympathetic to plaintiffs claiming discrimination, employers usually focus on getting cases dismissed before trial."

I guess some folks can't let the facts get in the way of their snark.