Eugene F. MARESCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EVANS CHEMETICS, DIV. of W.R. GRACE & CO., Defendants Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the decision to consolidate offices and terminate some workers may be based on “considerations of cost and administrative convenience,” reasonable factors unrelated to age
• dismissing disparate impact claim because plaintiffs “facially neutral employment practice ... coalesces with the discharge which he claims to have constituted disparate treatment”
• noting that the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is “very broad”
• stating decision to consolidate offices and terminate some workers may be based on “considerations of cost and administrative convenience,” reasonable factors unrelated to age
• dismissing a disparate impact claim where the plaintiffs “facially neutral employment practice ... coalesces with the discharge which he claims to have constituted disparate treatment”
• dismissing a disparate-impact claim where the plaintiff’s “facially neutral employment practice ... coalesces with the discharge which he claims to have constituted disparate treatment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).