Daniel H. SAHADI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REYNOLDS CHEMICAL, Division of Hoover Ball and Bearing Company, Defendant-Appellee

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 plaintiff was not replaced where his former duties were assumed by another employee in addition to his other functions
• holding plaintiff was not “replaced” where his former duties were assumed by another employee in addition to that employee’s prior duties
• noting that, when it is shown that an employer is making cutbacks due to economic necessity, a plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of age discrimination by merely showing that they were a competent employee and that they were terminated
• “[A] prima facie case of age discrimination is not shown by mere termination of a competent employee where it is shown that an employer is making cutbacks due to economic necessity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).