Charles R. Carlton v. Mystic Transportation, Inc., Mystic Bulk Carriers, Inc., and Leonard Baldari

How courts have described this case

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

• it is a premise of the “same actor inference” that the “person who fires an employee is the same person that hired him”
• “When the same actor hires a person already within the protected class, and then later fires that same person, it is difficult to impute to her an invidious motivation that would be inconsistent with the decision to hire.” (quotation omitted)
• “upon [plaintiff’s] termination his duties were transferred in part to Gounalis, a co-worker, who was 18 years younger than [plaintiff], and his remaining duties were given to Oravets, an employee 25 years younger, who was hired three months after Carlton was discharged.”
• analyzing individual factor “within the totality of the evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).