David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Although one might have the misimpression that the missteps referred to in the title of this paper indicate a criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court's ADEA decision of Mendelsohn v. Sprint/United Management Co., it does not. I believe the unanimous Court opinion is correct: 'Me too' evidence should be admissible in certain instances based on evidentiary principles and based on the overriding importance of context in such cases, as further discussed in Professor Mitchell Rubinstein's Colloquy Essay, 'Mendelsohn v. Sprint/United Management; The Supreme Court Appears to Punt Whether 'Me Too' Evidence of Discrimination is Admissible or Does It?' Rather, the missteps I have in mind are three and include: (1) my own misstep for writing in a previous Workplace Prof Blog post, before the decision, that a per se rule against this type of evidence would be adopted by the usual conservative Supreme Court Justice suspects; (2) the misstep made by the Supreme Court for granting certiorari in the first place in this rather mundane (legally speaking) employment discrimination case; and (3) the misstep of Professor Rubinstein in suggesting that the decision in Mendelsohn will provide 'important medicine' for employment discrimination plaintiffs and in concluding that this 'me too' evidentiary issue may again raise its narcissistic head before the Court.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Theodore W. Ruger (2004). The United State Supreme Court and Health Law: The Year in Review: The Supreme Court Federalizes Managed Care Liability. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 (3):528-531.
Eric A. Youngstrom & Christine Pellegrini Busch (2000). Expert Testimony in Psychology: Ramifications of Supreme Court Decision in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael. Ethics and Behavior 10 (2):185 – 193.
Wade K. Wright, Facilitating Intergovernmental Dialogue: Federalism, Judicial Review and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Angelique EagleWoman, Strate V. A-1 Contractors: Intrusion Into the Sovereign Domain of Native Nations.
Simon Butt, The Constitutional Court's Decision in the Dispute Between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission: Banishing Judicial Accountability?
Anna Harvey & Michael J. Woodruff, Confirmation Bias in the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database.
I. V. Pfutzenreuter, The Curious Case of Disparate Impact Under the Adea: Reversing the Theory's Development Into Obsolescence.
David C. Thompson & Melanie Wachtell, An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?