Com. v. Mackey, S.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to survive summary judgment an employee does not have to “prove” pretext, but only needs to create a “genuine issue as to whether the rationale is pretextual”
• noting that courts consider whether the witness is “qualified” and whether the testimony is “relevant” and “reliable”
• stating that it “is the province of the jury to assess the credibility of witnesses”
• finding that the expert did not state a legal conclusion because she did not “frame[ ] her opinion in the ‘specialized’ language of disability discrimination law” and did not “even use the words ‘pretext’ or ‘discrimination’ in her report”
• finding that the expert did not state a legal conclusion because she did not “frame[ ] her opinion in the ‘specialized’ language of disability discrimination law” and did not “even use the words ‘pretext’ or ‘discrimination’ in her report”
• permitting expert testimony on the nursing standard of care in an employment discrimination case that “call[ed] into question the factual assertion at the heart of [defendant’s] defense” that the plaintiff committed nursing errors that caused her termination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).