Colloquy Published On Sprint "Me Too" Case

I am delighted to announce that the entire Northwestern Law Review Colloquy on the significance of the Sprint "Me Too" decision has been published. Attorneys and scholars who are struggling with understanding the significance of the Sprint decision may find our little debate helpful.

In a nutshell, I believe the decision will result in more me too type evidence being admitted because the Court set the bar so low. Professor Secunda does not believe that Sprint has changed anything because courts still will take a case by case look at the evidence. Professor Gregory notes that because the Court did not set forth any clear criteria, lower courts may be be faced with sorting out streams of "he said she said" "me too" type of evidence.

The articles, which are all available without charge, are as follows:

1. Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn: The Supreme Court Appears To Have Punted On The Admissibility of "Me Too" Evidence. But Did It?, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 264 (2008)

2. Paul M. Secunda, The Many Mendelsohn "Me Too" Missteps: An Alliterative Response To Professor Rubinstein, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 374 (2008)

3. David L. Gregory, Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn and Case-by-Case Adjudication of "Me Too" Evidence of Discrimination, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 382 (2008)

4. Mitchell H. Rubinstein, The Significance of Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn: A Reply To Professors Gregory And Secunda, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 387 (2008)

Mitchell H. Rubinstein