Kimberly Hern Troupe v. The May Department Stores Company, Doing Business as Lord & Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff may prove discrimi- nation through evidence of “ambiguous statements, suspicious timing, discrimination against other employees, and other pieces of evidence none conclusive in itself but together composing a convincing mosaic of discrimina- tion”
• describing the third type of evidence as evidence that the plaintiff was passed over or replaced by another, and that the employer’s justification was pretextual
• noting that a plaintiff must compare herself to “employees similarly situated to the plaintiff other than in the characteristic (pregnancy, sex, race, or whatever) on which an employer is forbidden to base a difference in treatment”
• noting that circumstantial evidence of direct discrimination can be presented by (1) suspicious and ambiguous statements and behavior towards the protected group, (2) employees who are not in the protected group systemically receiving better treatment, and (3
• listing three types of circumstantial evidence, one of which is the “pretext” or “burden-shifting” framework that courts refer to as the “indirect method” of proof
• considering “pieces of evidence none conclusive in itself but together composing a convincing mosaic of discrimination against the plaintiff’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).