Document: 128 S. Ct. 1140 (2008) SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., Petitioner, v. Ellen MENDELSOHN. No. 06-1221. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 3, 2007. Decided February 26, 2008. *1142 Paul W. Cane, Jr., San Francisco, CA, for petitioner. Gregory G. Garre, the States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Dennis E. Egan, Kansas City, MO, respondent. Chris R. Pace, Overland Park, KS, John J. Yates, Mark Arnold, Christine F. Miller, James Monafo, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, St. Louis, Counsel Record, Katherine C. Huibonhoa, Heather N. Mitchell, Paul, *1143 Hastings, Janofsky Walker LLP, Petitioner. Eric Schnapper, School Law, University Washington, Seattle, WA, The Popham Law Firm, P.C., Respondent. Justice THOMAS delivered opinion In this age discrimination case, District excluded testimony nonparties alleging at hands supervisors defendant company who played no role in adverse employment decision challenged plaintiff. Appeals, having concluded that improperly applied a per se rule excluding evidence, engaged its own analysis relevant factors under Federal Rules Evidence 401 and 403, remanded with instructions to admit testimony. We granted certiorari on question whether required admission conclude such evidence is neither admissible nor inadmissible. Because it not entirely clear rule, we vacate judgment Appeals remand conduct inquiry appropriate standard. I Respondent Mendelsohn was employed Business Development Strategy Group petitioner Sprint/United Management Company (Sprint) from 1989 until 2002, when Sprint terminated her part an ongoing company-wide reduction force. She sued Age Discrimination Employment Act 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., disparate treatment based age. support claim, sought introduce five other former employees claimed their had discriminated against them because Three witnesses alleged they heard one or more managers make remarks denigrating older workers. One Sprint's intern program mechanism she seen spreadsheet suggesting supervisor considered making layoff decisions. Another witness testify he been given unwarranted negative evaluation "banned" working his age, witnessed another employee being harassed App. 17a. final him get permission before hiring anyone over 40, after termination replaced younger employee, rejected subsequent applications. None worked Mendelsohn, any chain command, which included Fee, Mendelsohn's direct supervisor; Reddick, Fee's manager decisionmaker termination; Bill Blessing, Reddick's head Group. Neither did proffered report hearing discriminatory Blessing. *1144 moved limine exclude testimony, arguing irrelevant central issue case: Reddick See Fed. Evid. 401, 402. would be only if came were "similarly situated" same supervisors. 156a. also argued that, Rule probative value substantially outweighed danger unfair prejudice, confusion issues, misleading jury, undue delay. minute order, motion, excluding, part, "discrimination similarly situated plaintiff." Pet. Cert. 24a. clarifying could "offer are her," court defined "`[s]imilarly employees,' purpose ruling, [as] requir[ing] proof (1) Ruddick [sic] decision-maker action; (2) temporal proximity." Ibid. Beyond provided explanation basis ruling. As trial proceeded, judge orally clarified order meant "that treated people unfairly age," bar going "totally different" "whether [reduction force], [Sprint's] stated nondiscriminatory reason, pretext discrimination." 295a-296a. Tenth Circuit application proving ADEA case. Specifically, abused discretion relying Aramburu Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398 (C.A.10 1997). 466 1223, 1227-1228 2006). held "[s]imilarly employees," showing discipline, "are those deal subject standards governing performance discipline." F.3d, 1404 (internal quotation marks omitted). viewed case inapposite addressed policy discrimination. then determined unduly prejudicial, reversed new trial. certiorari, 551 U.S. ___, 127 2937, 168 L. Ed. 2d 261 (2007), determine whether, action, require persons II parties focus dispute correctly prejudicial 403. conclude, however, should have inquiry. Rather, explained below, hold erred concluding rule. Given circumstances unclear Court's decision, clarification. A deference district court's familiarity details *1145 greater experience evidentiary matters, courts appeals afford broad rulings. This has acknowledged: "A accorded wide determining admissibility Rules. Assessing [the evidence], weighing counseling matter first sound 403 ...." Abel, 469 45, 54, 105 465, 83 450 (1984). particularly true respect since requires "on-the-spot balancing potentially some already found factually relevant." 1 Childress M. Davis, Standards Review 4.02, p. 4-16 (3d ed.1999). Under deferential standard, uphold rulings unless discretion. Old Chief States, 519 172, 183, n. 7, 117 644, 136 574 (1997). Here, accord described "hallmark abuse-of-discretion review." General Elec. Co. Joiner, 522 136, 143, 118 512, 139 508 Instead, reasoned "erroneous[ly] conclu[ded] controlled fate case." 1230, 4. To sure, motion argued, citation Aramburu's categorical bar, "[e]mployees may supervisor," 163a, mirrors blanket language. But discussion cited gave indication relied two sentences discussing evidence: "Plaintiff offer her. `Similarly Contrary Appeals' conclusion, these include type evidence. appeal[1] must controlling motion. party's submissions suggested controlling. memorandum mentioned string citation, proposition witnesses' admissible.[2]*1146 163a. cite opposition, see id., 208a, address reply brief, 221a. further use phrase situated," used Aramburu, evidenced reliance Although phrase, decline read different context plaintiff's allegation nonminority favorably than minority employees. 1403-1406. Absent reason do so, assume adopted very kind An appellate presume intended incorrect legal result equally susceptible correct reading, applicable standard review deferential. additionally apply nature argument suggest never admissible; simply lacked sufficient "in case" outweigh prejudice When language ambiguous, here, improper lower reached conclusion. directing clarify generally permissible better approach B view, irrelevant, so occasion reach relevant, upon decided undertook questions relevance instance. supra, 465 ("Assessing [evidence], ..."). Rather assess itself potential effect, allowed determinations instance, explicitly record.[3] Pullman-Standard Swint, 456 273, 291, 102 1781, 72 66 (1982) (When "fail[s] finding erroneous view law, usual there proceedings permit missing findings"). With general particular, virtually always position particular it. *1147 note Relevance facts arguments thus amenable rules. Advisory Committee's Notes 28 U.S.C.App., 864 ("Relevancy inherent characteristic item but exists relation between properly provable case"). But, discussed, record III individual fact depends many factors, including how closely related theory Applying fact-intensive, context-specific inadmissible, within province ruling It ordered. NOTES [1] Although, noted above, filings grounds base our shall consider made Appeals. [2] Even inappropriate reviewing assume, absent opinion, argument. Cf. Lawrence Chater, 516 163, 116 604, 133 545 (1996) (SCALIA, J., dissenting) ("[W]e [a party] supported it"). [3] exception "the permits resolution factual issue." 292, (1982). dispositive character.

Category: 1