Filar v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

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 “Board did not have the authority to assign a cadre substitute to ‘one place to work’ ”
• noting that a proper comparator need not be the plaintiff’s “doppelganger,” merely “similar enough to eliminate confounding variables” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• articulating the fourth element of the prima facie case of an ADEA claim as whether “the employer treated-‘similarly situated’ employees at least ten years younger more favorably”
• comparing plaintiff to employees with more seniority, when seniority status was discretionary
• in age discrimination case, rejecting argument that defendant was entitled to inference of nondiscrimination simply because same decision maker hired and fired plaintiff
• in age discrimination case, rejecting argument that defendant was entitled to inference of nondiscrimination simply because same decision maker hired and fired plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).