Joseph D. GIACOLETTO, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMAX ZINC COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a jury could infer discrimination where an employer implemented a “subjective employment decision” contradicted by “objective evidence” of the plaintiff’s capabilities
• holding that jury could consider earlier evaluations in determining whether the reasons given for discharge were pretextual when a plaintiff assert- ing age discrimination received a suspiciously negative annual review just six days before he was fired
• holding failure to follow internal policies was evidence of pretext where the plaintiff “tied the employment decision to a consideration of age”
• affirming jury verdict for age-discrimination plaintiff where 16 No. 18-3630 employer fired him without following its standard proce- dures, including helping employees overcome deficiencies
• affirming jury verdict for age-discrimination plaintiff where 16 No. 18-3630 employer fired him without following its standard proce- dures, including helping employees overcome deficiencies
• employer’s deviation from standard procedure to help struggling employee before terminating him is evidence of pretext and retaliatory intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).