In re Miller's Dresses, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• adopting “substantially younger” test because it is logically connected to the discrimination that the age discrimination statute seeks to prevent
• utilizing the McDonnell Douglas •framework to analyze circumstantial evidence of discrimination under Ohio’s employment-discrimination statute
• adopting Swierkiewicz and noting that Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 8(A)(1) mirrors its federal counterpart verbatim
• stating, in a case involving discriminatory discharge, that the fourth prong requires only that the plaintiff was replaced by or the discharge permitted the retention of a substantially younger individual
• “Although we are not bound to apply federal court interpretation of federal statutes to analogous Ohio statutes, we have looked to federal case law when considering claims of employment discrimination brought under the Ohio Revised Code.”
• “[W]e hold that absent direct evidence of age discrimination, in order to establish a prima facie case of a violation of R.C. 4112.14(A) in an employment discharge action, a plaintiff-employee must demonstrate that he or she (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).