Brenda K. Woodman v. Wwor-Tv, Inc., News America, Inc., and Fox Television Stations, 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 plaintiffs proffer of evidence that some of defendant’s employees knew of her protected status did not permit an inference that those employees who actually participated in her termination had such knowledge
• holding that “some evidence of . . . knowledge [as to the alleged significant age discrepancy] is required to support the inference necessary to establish a prima facie case”
• holding that 8 ADEA claim failed at the prima facie stage where there was no evidence of the 9 decision-maker’s knowledge of the relative ages of plaintiff or replacement
• holding that plaintiff’s proffer of evidence that some employees knew of her protected status did not permit an inference that those who actually participated in her termination had such knowledge
• concluding that “plaintiff’s hypothesis is mere speculation . . . too thin to support an inference that defendants knew plaintiff’s protected status at the time of her discharge and discriminated against her on the basis of age” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• nothing that “conclusory statements conjecture or speculation are inadequate to defeat a motion for summary judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).