Baker v. McDonald's Rest. Store No. 6165

How courts have described this case

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

• single racial joke, together with other indicia of racial animus, is properly placed before jury as circumstantial evidence of discrimination
• finding fact supervisor laughed at racist joke could be evidence of discriminatory motive
• indicating, under a differently labeled but similar standard, that such motions should be denied unless “the evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom is so one-sided that reasonable men could not disagree on the verdict”
• explaining a 29 court “need not—and indeed cannot—reconstruct the precise mathematical formula that the jury” used so long as the court is “satisfied that the award is within a reasonable range and the jury did not engage in speculation or other improper activity”
• $10,000.00 award sustained as not “unreasonable” in section 1981 action in which plaintiff suffered “seventeen months of incessant humiliation, harassment, and feelings of isolation”
• “Our inquiry ends once we are satisfied that the award is within a reasonable range and that the jury did not engage in speculation or other improper activity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).