Cohen v. Sheehy Ford of Springfield, 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 the absence of “any information as to whether [the comparator] employees were otherwise similarly situated” prevents “even a minimal inference of age discrimination”
• holding that the plaintiff must “plead facts that give ‘plausible support to a minimal inference’ of the requisite discriminatory causality” (quoting Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 310-11)
• holding that the absence of “any information as to whether [the comparator] employees were otherwise similarly situated or the specifics of their conduct” prevents “even a minimal inference of age discrimination”
• explaining that the Second Circuit has assumed without deciding that “that ‘but-for’ causation is required to support a[n] [age discrimination] claim under the NYSHRL”
• categorizing comparators as “younger” “[w]ithout any information as to whether these employees were otherwise similarly situated or the specifics of their conduct…does not give rise to even a minimal inference of age discrimination.”
• making clear that Plaintiff’s claim that he had had been replaced by a less experienced, younger employee was alone inadequate under the ADEA or the NYSHRL to show that plaintiff would not have been replaced “but for” his age

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).