-------------------------

In company-wide RIF, it was an abuse of discretion to exclude witnesses (who also thought they were victims of discrimination) just because they did not have the same supervisor as the plaintiff.

Mendelsohn v. Sprint/United Management Co., 466 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. November 1, 2006) - This is an ADEA action. Ellen Mendelsohn alleges that she was selected for a reduction in force ("RIF") based on her age. Prior to trial, the district court granted Sprint's motion in limine excluding any evidence of alleged discriminatory treatment of other employees unless those employees had the same supervisor as Mendelsohn. In support of this motion, Sprint relied upon Aramburu v. The Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1997), which held that testimony regarding the treatment of other employees was not admissible unless those employees had the same supervisor as the plaintiff. As a result, the district court excluded several of Mendelsohn's witnesses from testifying at trial. These witnesses had different supervisors, but they believed they had also been discriminated against in the RIF. At trial, Sprint prevailed. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reverses and remands. Aramburu is a case involving discriminatory discipline and in that context a plaintiff must show that she and the other employees who were treated more favorably had the same supervisor. But in the case at bar, Sprint was engaging in a company-wide RIF, so the district court abused its discretion by limiting Mendelsohn to witnesses who had her same supervisor. Click here to see actual case.