evidence that may be introduced in court to aid the trier of fact - ie, the
judge or jury - in deciding the merits of a case. Each jurisdiction has established rules of evidence
to determine what evidence is admissible. A judge may exclude otherwise admissible evidence when he or she determines that its
probative value is outweighed by such factors as undue consumption of time, prejudice, confusion of issues or a danger that the jury
will be misled. A lurid, gory photograph, for example, depicting the scene of the crime, the weapon used or the injury to the victim
may have very high probative value as to several issues in a criminal trial, but since it may cause undue prejudice in the minds of the
jurors, it will be excluded if there is any other way to prove the necessary facts.
Source: Barron's Dictionary of Legal Terms, Steven H. Gifis, 5th Edition; © 2016
"In short, the district court considered the above facially-neutral employment practices, not in a vacuum, but in the context of Joe's historical discriminatory practice of excluding women as food servers. The district court properly considered Joe's historical discriminatory practices, and the "males-only" reputation Joe's created for itself, as relevant background evidence in examining whether Joe's facially-neutral employment practices caused and continued the gender disparity in Joe's food servers. In doing so, the district court did not err because it is well-settled that past discrimination is admissible to demonstrate that facially-neutral employment practices continue to perpetuate the effects of past discrimination."
- EEOC v Joe's, 296 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2002)