Bauer v. Metz Baking Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the kind of questions to which the plaintiff was subjected “are as commonly directed at persons in their twenties as to persons in their late fifties”
• “Although the comments may have related to Bauer herself, they certainly do not relate to the abilities of older employees.”
• “[S]tray remarks that are remote in time do not support a finding of pretext for intentional discrimination.” (quotation marks omitted
• “Where, as here, comments are not ‘close in time’ to an adverse employment decision, the plaintiff ‘must establish a causal link between the comments and his [or her] termination.’ ”
• “The chain of inferences upon which Bauer’s ‘causal link’ argument relies is itself indicative of the fact that Kelly’s questions simply are not ‘direct’ evidence of discriminatory intent.”
• analyzing Eighth Circuit precedent in setting out these criteria

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).