Apseloff Bros. v. Hyman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence to survive summary judgment because she had not, among other things, “shown that any comparators were supervised by the same supervisor”
• finding that the burden to authenticate under Rule 901 is not high and plaintiff’s declaration explaining her personal knowledge about certain exhibits was sufficient to authenticate exhibits
• granting summary judgment on Title VII disparate treatment claim because the plaintiff had abandoned the claim by not addressing her former employer’s arguments on the claim in her opposition
• “FEPA is the state law analogue of Title VII and its interpretation is guided by federal cases interpreting Title VII.”
• listing relevant factors to establish a similarly situated comparator
• listing relevant factors to establish a similarly situated comparator

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).