Alice T. Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the decision maker’s “shifting reasons” could allow a fact finder to question the decision maker’s credibility and infer that adverse employment action occurred for reasons other than those stated
• holding that “shifting reasons allow the jury to question [the employer’s] credibility” and once his “credibility is damaged, the jury could infer that he did not fire [the employee] because of the [proffered reason], but rather because of her disability”
• noting that discrimination could be inferred from evidence that the plaintiff was treated differently “after she came back to work with her disability”
• stating that judgment as a matter of law should only be granted “when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the party on that issue”
• stating that judgment as a matter of law should only be granted “when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the party on that issue”
• rejecting the argument that, after trial on the merits, the lack of comparator evidence, in and of itself, required judgment as a matter of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).