61 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1505, 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,511 William L. Nesbit v. Pepsico, Inc., Charles A. Selby v. Pepsico, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that employer's use of the phrase \[w]e don't necessarily like grey hair\ did not support an inference of discriminatory motive
• holding that the employer's use of the phrase \we don't necessarily like grey hair\ did not support an inference of discriminatory motive
• holding that employer’s use of the phrase “[w]e don’t necessarily like grey hair” did not support an inference of discriminatory motive
• concluding that a superior's comment that “[w]e don’t necessarily like grey hair” “was 10 uttered in an ambivalent manner and was not tied directly to [the plaintiff’s] termination” and thus 11 was “at best weak circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus”
• concluding that a superior’s comment that “[w]e don't necessarily like grey hair” “was 5 uttered in an ambivalent manner and was not tied directly to [the plaintiff's] termination” and thus 6 was “at best weak circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus”
• stating that a comment “uttered in an ambivalent manner” and not tied to the adverse employment action was insufficient to establish discriminatory animus

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).