Coleman v. Prudential Relocation

How courts have described this case

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

• statistical evidence about RIF in which nine out of nineteen employees were terminated was meaningless due to small number of people involved
• no age discrimination where plaintiff was hired at age fifty-one and discharged fourteen months later
• replacement by a younger person may be enough to satisfy the fourth element of plaintiffs prima facie case, but it is not enough to create an issue of fact about pretext
• replacement by a younger person may be enough to satisfy the fourth element of plaintiffs prima facie ease, but it is not enough to create an issue of fact about pretext
• no age discrimination where plaintiff hired at age 51 and discharged fourteen months later
• in granting summary judgment for the employer, the Court held that even if “the factors relied upon by [defendant] are subjective and inaccurate ... this largely conclusory assertion is not probative of age discrimination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).