A Word to the Wise

These questions highlight the difficulty in deciding the question of relevance in discrimination cases. No formula or litmus test can be applied in determining the relevance of any testimony, and rulings on admissibility vary. Certainly, the fact-specific nature of such inquiries plays a role in the disparity of result. But is there more at work?

A non-scientific survey of recent cases supports the view that there is. Further, as the plaintiff's bar can readily attest, their clients more often than not seem to lose the relevance battle. Inferences are often taken in favor of employers where the office demographics do not support plaintiff's claim, see Baptiste v. LaQuila-Pinnacle, 2003 WL 21756094 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Hellerstein, D.J.) (“But the large number of black workers on defendant's projects … weighs heavily against any inference of discrimination.”), but tend not to be given in support of plaintiff's case where they may otherwise appear warranted. See Molnar v. Pratt & Whitney, 2002 WL 32083121 (2d. Cir. 2002) (no inference of age discrimination from fact that most recent hires were considerably younger than plaintiff). The answer, it seems, lies in a witches' brew of evidentiary rules, bad lawyering, common sense, the fact-finders' preconceived notions, and – yes – in the facts of the particular case.