18 Cited authorities

Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn
552 U.S. 379 (2008) Cited 783 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that other employees' testimony that they were discriminated against is not "per se admissible or per se inadmissible," but its relevance "is fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case"
Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fl., Inc.
196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,086 times
Holding that the decisionmaker's comment that "the company needed ... young men ... to be promoted" did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination for a termination claim
Jones v. UPS Ground Freight
683 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2012) Cited 660 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "use of epithets associated with a different ethnic or racial minority than the plaintiff," paired with other alleged racial harassment, was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the plaintiff endured a hostile work environment
Goldsmith v. Elevator Co.
513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) Cited 728 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that co-worker testimony that an employer retaliated and discriminated against them is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to prove the same decisionmaker's motive, intent, or plan to discriminate or retaliate against the plaintiff
Macuba v. Deboer
193 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 669 times
Holding that Rule 56(e), now Rule 56(c), "also applies to testimony given on deposition"
Adams v. Austal, United Statesa., L.L.C.
754 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2014) Cited 222 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the use of racial slurs around the plaintiff raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to severity
Zaben v. Air Products Chemicals, Inc.
129 F.3d 1453 (11th Cir. 1997) Cited 211 times
Holding that replacement by someone outside the protected group is required to make a prima facie age discrimination case
Broadway v. City of Montgomery, Alabama
530 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1976) Cited 229 times
Holding that the statement of one witness of what another person said they were told constitutes double hearsay
Bell v. Crowne Mgmt. LLC
844 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (S.D. Ala. 2012) Cited 32 times
Determining that "the 'me, too' evidence offered by the plaintiff and her witnesses is woefully inadequate to compensate for her failure to identify a proper comparator" where the plaintiff provided "no details" and "no specifics" regarding allegations of past discrimination
King v. Volunteers of Am., N. Ala., Inc.
614 F. App'x 449 (11th Cir. 2015) Cited 2 times
Recognizing that a plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment based "on a self-serving, conclusory statement about why [she] believed she was terminated."
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 22,466 times 81 Legal Analyses
Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,065 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,358 times 34 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Section 20-2-940 - Grounds and procedure for terminating or suspending contract of employment
Ga. Code § 20-2-940 Cited 79 times
Including a hearing before the local school board and the reasons for dismissal

Pettigrew v. Atlanta Independent School System

18 Cited authorities

Holding that other employees' testimony that they were discriminated against is not "per se admissible or per se inadmissible," but its relevance "is fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case"

Holding that the decisionmaker's comment that "the company needed ... young men ... to be promoted" did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination for a termination claim

Holding that the "use of epithets associated with a different ethnic or racial minority than the plaintiff," paired with other alleged racial harassment, was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the plaintiff endured a hostile work environment

Holding that co-worker testimony that an employer retaliated and discriminated against them is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to prove the same decisionmaker's motive, intent, or plan to discriminate or retaliate against the plaintiff

Holding that Rule 56(e), now Rule 56(c), "also applies to testimony given on deposition"

Holding that the use of racial slurs around the plaintiff raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to severity

Holding that replacement by someone outside the protected group is required to make a prima facie age discrimination case

Holding that the statement of one witness of what another person said they were told constitutes double hearsay

Determining that "the 'me, too' evidence offered by the plaintiff and her witnesses is woefully inadequate to compensate for her failure to identify a proper comparator" where the plaintiff provided "no details" and "no specifics" regarding allegations of past discrimination

Recognizing that a plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment based "on a self-serving, conclusory statement about why [she] believed she was terminated."

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Including a hearing before the local school board and the reasons for dismissal