The plaintiff claimed the elimination of her position in a company-wide reduction in force (?RIF?) was due to age discrimination rather than legitimate business reasons. ?She wanted to admit testimony of other employees who claimed their positions were eliminated in the same RIF due to age discrimination. ?The district court granted the employer?s motion in limine, excluding all evidence regarding testimony by employees who had different supervisors but claimed their positions were eliminated under the same circumstances as the plaintiff?s.? ?The case went to ?trial ?and? the ?plaintiff ?lost.?? ?On ?appeal, ?the Tenth Circuit ruled that the district court had abused its discretion barring the evidence wholesale and reversed for a new trial including the evidence. ?The Court granted the employer?s petition for certiorari. ?Mendelson v. Sprint, 466 The DOL argued that the interpretive regulation exempting third party domestic workers from the FLSA? controls.? The? Court? agreed,? citing? the unique expertise of the DOL, Chevron deference, and the statutory gap-filling role of agencies. ?Coke argued ?that ?the ??interpretation? ?should ?be ?given F.3d? ?1223? ?(10 (6/11/07).Cir.? ?2006),? ?cert.? ?granted,