Glenn E. Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employee who claimed he was similarly situated to a coworker made an “unsuitable comparison” because he was not disciplined for the same reasons as the coworker
• holding sua sponte summary judgment proper “as long as the losing party is given notice and an opportunity to come forward with its evidence”
• “arguing about the accuracy of the employer’s assessment is a distraction…because the question is not whether the employer’s reasons for a decision are right but whether the employer’s description of its reasons is honest.”
• “By neglecting to raise the discriminatory job assignments and retaliation claims in his opening brief . . . [appellant] waived review of these two issues.”
• “[W]e do accept [the plaintiff’s] version of the facts as true . . . .”
• “Because courts are not super-personnel departments who sit in judgment of management decisions, it is of no moment if the employer’s reasoning is incorrect, ‘foolish, trivial or even baseless.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).