October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1221

Can a worker use evidence of other supervisors' bias to prove their own supervisor's discrimination?

Sprint argues that evidence of other supervisors' bias is irrelevant to a specific worker's claim. The worker argues this evidence helps prove their own supervisor acted unfairly.

Official caption
Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Sprint's lawyer argued that the decision-maker's actions are the only relevant facts for the case.

    Mendelsohn's lawyer argued that evidence of other supervisors' bias can sometimes help prove the specific claim.

    Justice Kennedy questioned whether the lower court's short order truly banned all pattern evidence.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests how courts handle evidence of bias by other managers. The dispute centers on whether a worker can show their own supervisor acted unfairly by pointing to similar actions by different managers.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 3, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Sprint wants the Court to confirm that evidence of other supervisors' bias is generally irrelevant to a specific worker's claim.

Mendelsohn wants the Court to allow evidence of other supervisors' bias to help prove their own supervisor acted unfairly.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Sprint argues that an employment decision is made by the specific person who made it, so other managers' actions do not matter.

Mendelsohn argues that evidence of discrimination by other supervisors is sometimes admissible to help prove discrimination by the plaintiff's own supervisor.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Souter asked if a connection exists between the other supervisors' actions and the specific claim.

Justice Scalia asked whether the district court explained its order based on specific evidence rules or general discretion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how workers prove bias in individual employment disputes. It clarifies whether evidence of company-wide patterns helps or hinders a single worker's legal claim.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON