Hardy v. S.F. Phosphates Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that employer “may have selected [an employee] as a ‘sacrificial lamb,’” but finding that action legal if not based on employee’s age
• declining to find pretext when record showed that company decided to “t[ake] a more serious stance” against misconduct after the comparator’s violation, which had occurred before the plaintiff’s own violation
• employer may have selected the plaintiff.as a “sacrificial lamb” to show that it would not tolerate sexual harassment, but that action was legal if it was not based on the plaintiffs age or disability
• suitable comparators cannot be members of plaintiff’s protected class
• employer’s perception of employee’s performance is the critical question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).