Lubetsky v. Applied Card Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[A]n employer cannot intentionally discriminate against an individual based on his religion unless the employer knows the individual’s religion.”
• “[W]hen we evaluate a charge of disparate treatment employment discrimination, we must focus on the actual knowledge and actions of the decision-maker.”
• “[A]n employer cannot intentionally discriminate against an individual based on his religion unless the employer knows the individual’s religion.”
• “[A]n employer cannot intentionally discriminate against an individual based on his religion unless the employer knows the individual’s religion.”
• no intentional discrimination where “all of the evidence indicated Bardakjy, the individual who made the de- cision to rescind Appellant’s conditional job offer, was unaware of Appellant’s religion”
• “In this case, Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional religious discrimination by Appellee because he did not present any evidence that the decision- maker knew of his religion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).