Jose R. ALVAREZ-FONSECA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPSI COLA OF PUERTO RICO BOTTLING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that presumption of discrimination is triggered under Law No. 100 upon a showing that employer lacked just cause for the discharge or other adverse action taken against the employee
• affirming district court’s post-trial grant of Rule 50 motion because the evidence presented at trial “would not permit a reasonable jury” to find that discharge was unjustified
• discussing how an ADEA plaintiff must show that her comparator was \similarly situated in all relevant respects\
• rejecting a disparate treatment claim where two employees had different performance records
• “Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement 18 of the defendant”
• at the pleading stage, “plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 27 1 conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil 2 rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).