Michael J. Olsen v. Marshall & Ilsley Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a party’s “self-serving allegations . . . are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact”
• finding that unnamed parent company’s notice of the EEOC charge and participation in administrative proceedings in the place of the named subsidiary company was not sufficient to show that the unnamed party had the opportunity to conciliate
• stating “a plaintiff cannot withstand summary judgment if he fails to create a triable issue of fact with respect to each of his employer’s legitimate reasons”
• issue is not whether employer’s evaluation of employee was correct but whether it was honestly believed
• where prima facie analysis would overlap substantially with the question of pretext, the court may address the two together
• in “discussing the nature of the pretext inquiry, [the court has] stated that it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that his employer’s explanation was based on an inaccurate assessment of its employee’s performance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).