Nancy O'Mara Ezold, at No. 91-1780 v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, at No. 91-1741

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 district court is obligated to focus on the employer’s articulated reasons and citing Logue in support of this conclusion
• holding that remarks made by an individual who took no part in the hiring interview to be immaterial to the question of age discrimination
• concluding that stray remarks by a nondecisionmaker could not have infected decisionmaMng process
• finding that plaintiff's abilities in areas other than legal analysis not relevant in determining if law firm's legal analysis explanation for not promoting plaintiff was pretext
• finding that plaintiffs abilities in areas other than legal analysis not relevant in determining if law firm’s legal analysis explanation for not promoting plaintiff was pretext
• noting that the court does not act as “member [] of an employer’s promotion board or committee”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).