James F. HUTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements made by individuals who were not final decisionmakers with respect to decision to terminate do not establish pretext because no evidence of causal nexus
• holding that to prove racial discrimination based on comparisons of other employees, the compared employees must be similarly situated in all relevant respects
• recognizing that statistical evidence “may support a finding of pretext, particularly where there are independent, direct grounds for disbelieving the employer’s explanation for [the employment action]”
• holding that statements made by individuals who were not final decisionmakers with respect to decision to terminate do not establish pretext because no evidence of causal nexus
• stating that remarks made outside the decisionmaking process are not enough to support a finding of pretext
• finding that high performance ratings were unconvincing circumstantial evidence of discrimination in second stage of reduction in force, because all employees could be considered competent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).