Law

I sprint /United Man datement Co . v . MendelsohnIINo . 06-1221 http /laws .findlaw .com /us /000 /06-1221 .html (2008IIIRespondent Ellen Mendelsohn was employed in the commerce Development Strategy stem of petitioner Sprint /United Management Company (Sprint from 1989 until 2002 , when Sprint ended her as a part of an ongoing company-wide reduction in force . Mendelsohn in turn sued Sprint alleging disparate treatment based on her age . She sought to prove testimony from five dollar bill other former Sprint employees who claimed their supervisors had discriminated against them because of age . None of these five witnesses , however , actually worked in the Business Development Strategy Group with Mendelsohn , nor had any of them worked under the supervisors in her chain of command . Neither did any of the proffered witnesses report consultation discriminatory remarks made by her particular supervisors .

Sprint move therefore to exclude this testimony , arguing that it was irrelevant to the primordial issue in the case : whether Mendelsohn s immediate supervisor terminated her because of her age Sprint claimed the testimony would be relevant notwithstanding if it came from employees who were similarly situated to Mendelsohn in that they had the same supervisorsIVWas the Appeal act correct in holding that the District Court (the salute initially hearing the matter ) erred in applying a per se rule (a generalized rule applied without regard for particular(prenominal) circumstancesVIn a minute order , the District Court grant Sprint s motion to exclude the evidence provided by the five witnesses , because it was...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .