Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “different and arguably inconsistent explanations” creates inference of pretext
• fact that employer “offered different justifications at different times” and the “late appearance of [employer’s] current justification” supported inference of pretext
• “[A] factfinder could infer from the late appearance of [the] current justification that it is a post-hoc rationale,”
• “[T]he fact that [defendant] has offered different justifications at different times . . . is, in and of itself, probative of pretext.”
• “[A] factfinder could infer from the late appearance of [the] current justification that it is a post-hoc rationale.”
• “Indeed, the fact that [defendant] has offered different justifications at different times for its failure to hire [plaintiff] is, in and of itself, probative of pretext.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).