Moien Louzon v. Ford Motor Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \whether a comparator was working for the same supervisor should not be given significant weight\ if a defendant's general management structure would make it virtually impossible to find a comparator
• holding that a same-supervisor requirement would \render any plaintiff's burden virtually impossible\ against the defendant because each supervisor managed \no more than a few individuals\
• determining that the district court erred by requiring, at the prima facie stage, that comparators must have dealt with the same supervisor
• noting that such a requirement could limit the “pool of potential comparators . . . to no more than a few individuals” and “would render any plaintiff’s burden virtually impossible, even at the prima facie stage”
• finding that a motion in limine is not intended to resolve non- evidentiary matters prior to trial because “a mechanism already exists in civil actions” to resolve such matters—the summary judgment motion
• noting that “if these tactics were sufficient, a litigant could raise any matter in limine, as long as he included the duplicative argument that the evidence relating to the matter at issue is irrelevant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).