Limited the Use of “Me Too” Evidence in Employment Discrimination Case

During the last few years, the job market in the US was really good, with low unemployment and higher wages. But even with all that, there were more cases of people filing complaints about being treated unfairly at work. Now, the economy is starting to not do as well, and more people are losing their jobs. When that happens, even more people might start complaining about being treated unfairly by their bosses. More employees are speaking up about discrimination at work, leading to more complaints and lawsuits. In these cases, plaintiffs may want to use evidence of coworkers’ discrimination complaints as proof of the company’s unfair treatment. This “me too” evidence can be very persuasive to a jury. However, the company’s lawyers will try to keep this evidence out of the trial. This is because it can make the company look really bad. So, it’s a big deal in discrimination cases. The rules of evidence generally say that relevant evidence, which helps prove or disprove something important, is admissible in court. However, there are limits to this. Evidence of similar things that happened in the past can sometimes be used in court to show why someone did something, but not just to show they always do that. In employment discrimination cases, employees might use evidence of how their employer treated other employees to show that the employer discriminated against them. But the employer’s lawyers will argue that this evidence is unfair and should not be allowed in court. Some courts allow “me too” evidence in discrimination cases, while others do not. The 11th Circuit, for example, generally does not allow it. The decision to admit or exclude “me too” evidence depends on several factors that courts consider. It’s important to consider how recent or far in the past the “me too” events are when looking at a discrimination case. If the events are a long time ago, the company may have changed their leadership or practices since then, so it might not be relevant to the current situation. This is especially true if there have been major changes in the company’s structure or if there have been new laws or court decisions that have affected how they treat their employees. So, the timing of the events is an important factor to consider when evaluating a discrimination case. Courts generally agree that evidence of how an employer treated other employees is not proof of discrimination against a specific employee, if the events are too far in the past. However, the First Circuit may have a different opinion on this. There is no clear rule about how far back in time is too far for this evidence to be admissible. Another important factor is whether the person who made the decision in the past is the same person making the decision now. If they are different people, evidence of past discrimination may not be used to explain the current decision. This is about how important it is to consider the role of the person involved in the “me too” events. If it’s a low level supervisor, their influence is limited and their personal biases are unlikely to affect the company’s policies. So, their testimony may not be used in the plaintiff’s case. But if it’s an executive, their views and biases can be important because they have a lot of influence on company decisions. So, their testimony may be considered even if they weren’t directly involved in the events concerning the plaintiff’s claims. “Me too” testimony can be admitted in court if it involves comments or actions by an executive or manager that show bias against employees in a protected class. The testimony must be similar to the plaintiff’s situation to be relevant. For example, if a person is complaining about being paid less because of their race, “me too” testimony about a racially hostile work environment may not be relevant. Additionally, the “me too” witnesses and the plaintiff must be in the same protected class for the testimony to be relevant. For example, if the plaintiff is claiming racial discrimination, “me too” testimony about gender discrimination may not be relevant. Courts usually don’t allow “me too” testimony about how an employer treats people who are not like the plaintiff. For example, if the plaintiff is suing for being fired because of their gender, the court won’t usually allow testimony about how the employer discriminated based on race. The court says that discrimination against different groups has different histories and reasons, so they’re not necessarily related. This also applies in cases of disability discrimination. If the “me too” witness doesn’t have the same disability as the plaintiff, their testimony might not be allowed. Even if both the plaintiff and the “me too” witness have disabilities, if they’re different, the testimony might not be allowed. In trials, “me too” evidence (where others claim discrimination by the same employer) may not always be allowed. It might not be allowed if the events happened a long time ago or were very different from the plaintiff’s experience. Also, if different people were involved, it might not show the employer’s intent towards the plaintiff. Lastly, testimony about how the employer treated others who are not like the plaintiff may not be allowed. In employment discrimination cases, “me too” testimony can be powerful because it suggests where there’s smoke, there’s fire. This means that even without direct evidence of discrimination, jurors may be influenced to believe the plaintiff’s claims. Because of this, lawyers representing the employer may try to limit or exclude this type of evidence at trial. This can be done by carefully considering the factors that determine whether the evidence is relevant and prejudicial. Some of these factors include whether the testimony is too similar to the plaintiff’s own experiences and whether it is being used to show a pattern of discrimination. It’s important for the defense to challenge the admissibility of “me too” testimony in order to strengthen their case. J. Ray Poole is a lawyer who works for the government in Tallahassee. He helps businesses with legal issues related to their employees. This article was written on behalf of the Labor and Employment Law Section. Their goal is to promote fairness and excellence in the legal profession.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/limited-the-use-of-me-too-evidence-in-employment-discrimination-case/