Adamson v. Multi Community Diversified Services, 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 “replacement by an older or insignificantly younger worker does not per se doom a prima facie case if both are within the protected age group”
• noting that pretext evidence may be used to “support a prima facie case if it indeed gives rise to an inference of actionable discriminatory intent”
• explaining that “an employee’s subjective belief in a comment’s invidious nature . . . does not support an inference of discriminatory intent.”
• noting that employee’s subjective belief in invidious nature of isolated and ambiguous comment does not support inference of discrimination
• finding that differential treatment is insufficient to state a claim for reverse discrimination
• explaining that “there is no proscription in an appropriate case against using pretext evidence to support a prima facie case if it indeed gives rise to an inference of actionable discriminatory intent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).