Crawford v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no pretext shown and affirming summary judgment for employer because “[m]easures designed to reduce costs in general that also result in an incidental reduction in benefit expenses do not suggest discriminatory intent”
• “the facts of these cases will always be myriad and complicated, and plaintiffs must show that the employer, in the midst of all this, in some way targeted certain employee benefits or rights for interference”
• “Plaintiffs may make this showing either through direct or circumstantial evidence, with the latter via the ubiquitous [McDonnell Douglas] burden-shifting framework that has, like some B-movie villain, devoured nearly every area of law with which it has come into contact.”
• applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to ERISA claims
• assessing Section 510 claim brought against employer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).