Prof. Secunda Posts On SSRN A Response To My Article About Sprint/United v. Mendelsohn, The Celebrated "Me Too" Decision

On April 26, 2008, Professor Paul M. Secunda posted a marvelous essay in response to my Essay About the Sprint case entitled The Many Mendelsohn "Me Too" Missteops: An Alliterative Response To Professor Rubinstein, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy ___(forthcoming 2008) where he responds to my Essay Sprint/United Management Co. V. Mendelsohn: The Supreme Court Appears To Have Punted On The Admssibility Of "Me Too" Evidence Of Discrimination. But Did It?, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 264 (2008), by offering his views about the case and about some of the "missteps" that may have been made. As the Abstract provides:

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.

Professor David Gregory has also written a wonderful Essay in Response to my Essay entitled Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn: The "Me Too" Relative of the "He Said, She Said" Extended Family, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy __(forthcoming 2008) that will also be published as part of this Colloquy. Additionally, I will be publishing a Reply to Professors Secunda and Gregory which I hope to have posted on SSRN in a few days.

Scholars and attorneys interested in employment discrimination may find our Colloquy important to review.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein