James A. RICHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOOK-SUPERX, INC. and Revco D.S., Inc., Defendants-Appellees

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 seven-year age difference between a 52-year-old and 45-year-old replacement was a presumptively insubstantial gap
• holding that the seven-year age difference between a 52-year-old and 45-year-old replacement was a presumptively insubstantial gap
• holding that seven-year difference, from 52 to 45 years old, was insufficient to establish fourth requirement of prima facie case
• holding that seven-year difference, from 52 to 45 years old, was insufficient to establish fourth requirement of prima facie case
• holding employer’s statements that employee had a “low energy level” and was “resistant to change” did not raise an inference of age discrimination
• “To succeed in an ADEA claim, a plaintiff must establish that he would not have received adverse treatment but for his employer’s motive to discriminate on the basis of his age.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).