Fernandes v. Costa Bros. Masonry

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 statement, “I don’t need minorities and I don’t need residents on the job”, was subject to multiple interpretations
• holding that employer’s remark that \I don’t need minorities\ was susceptible of a benign interpretation and thus could not constitute direct evidence of discrimination
• noting that “a statement that plausibly can be interpreted two different ways — one discriminatory and the other benign — does not directly reflect illegal animus”
• noting that a plaintiff “may elect to proceed simultaneously on both fronts” and that “the trial court, at an appropriate stage of the litigation, will channel the case into one format or the other”
• noting that the First Circuit has yet to choose among different approaches to \direct evidence\ and \circumstantial evidence\ cases
• noting that the First Circuit has yet <br>to choose among different approaches to \direct evidence\ and <br>\circumstantial evidence\ cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).