John Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “we do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “we do not sit as a 2 super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that, in assessing employment discrimination claims, the Court does not “sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions”
• finding that a company-wide reduction-in-force “constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination of employment”
• reiterating Second Circuit’s holding that a reduction in workforce “constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination of employment”
• affirming refusal to consider document on summary judgment because it contained “inadmissible hearsay—an out-of-court statement that [plaintiff] would rely on to show the truth of the matter asserted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).