Charles R. Mattenson, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it is the employee’s responsibility to “present persuasive evidence of inability to find a substitute job”
• finding that a fifty-one year-old plaintiffs failure to obtain a position based on twenty-three applications did not entitle him to a front pay award until age sixty-five “in order that he can play golf eight hours a day”
• noting the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting formula for proving discrimination “is intended for the guidance of the judge when asked to resolve a case on summary judgment”
• “The work- product doctrine shields materials that are prepared in anticipation of litigation from the opposing party”
• “[P]rovided the prospect of litigation was not remote . . . , the fact that the case hadn’t begun and might never be brought did not disqualify [attorney’s] jottings from the shelter of the work-product doctrine.”
• “[A] party seeking to invoke the crime-fraud exception must at least demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime or fraud has been attempted or committed and that the communications were in furtherance thereof.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).