In Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, the United State Supreme Court held that "me too" evidence of discrimination is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible in an age discrimination lawsuit, and trial courts are required to engage in a balancing test to determine whether such evidence should be admitted.

The plaintiff in Sprint sought to introduce testimony from five other employees who claimed that they also had been discriminated against on the basis of their age. However, none of the five employees worked in plaintiff's department, nor worked under plaintiff's supervisors, and none of them heard any discriminatory remarks from plaintiff's supervisors. The employer moved to exclude the evidence as irrelevant.

The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether such evidence of alleged discrimination by other supervisors is irrelevant and/or too prejudicial in any discrimination case requires a "fact-intensive, context-specific inquiry" by the trial court that is not subject to per se rules. Courts must assess "how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case."

While the Court failed to articulate a specific admissibility test, its decision allows employers to continue to argue that "me too" evidence should be excluded where the evidence is irrelevant and/or unfairly prejudicial.