Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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 district court acted within its discretion when it excluded evidence under Rule 403 where “testimony relating to the [allegedly discriminatory] remarks would have been, at best, only marginally relevant”
• observing that “inaccuracy or incompleteness resulting from the [employer’s] failure to include the fact of the discriminatory motivation” in its stated reason is “pretext”
• explaining that, whether discriminatory remarks suggest discrimination depends on, inter alia, “when the remark was made in relation to the employment decision at issue” (collecting cases)
• noting that, in determining whether a statement is probative of discrimination, a district court may consider “the context in which the remark was made (i.e., whether it was related to the decision[]making process)”
• explaining that even where a supervisor involved in an adverse action used a discriminatory phrase around the time of the alleged failure to promote, the remark was of low probative value because it “was not related to the decision-making process”
• suggesting that, when considering whether remarks are probative of discrimination, courts consider “(1) who made the remark (i.e., a decision-maker, a supervisor, or a low-level co-worker); (2) when the remark was made in relation to the employment decision at issue; (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).