Julie ROSSY, Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. ROCHE PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that even where proof is based on inferences, summary judgment for defendant may be appropriate where \plaintiff rests merely upon unsupported - 18 - allegations\ (quoting Méndez v. Belton, 739 F.2d 15, 20 (1st Cir. 1984))
• “Our role is not to second-guess the business decisions of an employer, imposing our subjective judgments of which person would best fulfill the responsibilities of a certain job.”
• \The framework of shifting burdens is inapplicable when the plaintiff presents direct proof of discrimination.\
• questions of intent are best reserved for a factfinder because “proof is generally based on inferences that must be drawn, rather than on the proverbial ‘smoking gun’”
• Docket No. 581 at 11-12

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).