Carl W. Walton v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a remark by a decisionmaker made two years before termination was too remote in time to support a finding of pretext for intentional discrimination
• holding that stray remarks made almost two years prior to employment action were “outdated” and “lacking in apparent probative value.”
• holding that a remark by a decisionmaker made two years before termination was too remote in -16- time to support a finding of pretext for intentional discrimination
• affirming summary judgment because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext under McDonnell Douglas with remarks that occurred two years earlier
• affirming summary judgment because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext under McDonnell Douglas with remarks that occurred two years earlier
• “For example, ‘stray remarks in the workplace,’ ‘statements of nondecisionmakers,’ or ‘statements by decisionmakers unrelated to the decisional process itself will not suffice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).