Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.

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 disparity did not evidence pretext when the plaintiff lacked director and customer service experience as compared to the selected person, although she made “self-serving assertions about her . . . leadership abilities . . . .”
• stating that the plaintiffs “failure to identify a comparator does not end the analysis of her termination claim”
• stating that the plaintiffs “failure to identify a comparator does not end the analysis of her termination claim”
• finding that the plaintiff’s “self-serving assertion that she was not insubordinate does not alone establish that she was terminated because of her sex”
• holding employee’s assertion she was not insubordinate did not alone establish she was terminated because of her sex
• noting that the elements of a Section 1981 claim are essentially the same as a claim pursuant to Section 1983

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).