Donald Showalter v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that while ADEA draws no bright lines, evidence of an eight-year age gap was sufficient to satisfy this element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case
• holding that plaintiff satisfied the fourth prong of a prima facie case for age discrimination based on evidence that he was eight years older than one retained worker and sixteen years older than the second retained worker
• outlining the distinction as applied to the prima facie requirements for bringing a claim under McDonnell Douglas
• outlining the distinction as applied to the prima facie requirements for bringing a claim under McDonnell Douglas
• noting the Third Circuit’s recognition in Sempier and holding that an eight-year age difference satisfies the fourth prong
• noting that while there is no “particular age difference that must be shown . . . courts have held that a five year difference can be sufficient, [and] a one year difference cannot” to create an inference that an employment decision was based on age

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).