Paul BOHRER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HANES CORPORATION, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the defendant's actions cannot be \a pretext or ruse designed to conceal a discriminatory motive\ in an employment discrimination claim (citation omitted)
• considering a judgment not withstanding the verdict and explaining that Rule 50 requires that the nonmovant be alerted to the insufficiency of his case and be given the opportunity to cure any defects
• although the defendants presented substantial evidence after the court took the initial motion under advisement, the court excused the defendant’s failure to renew the motion at the close of all the evidence because the purposes of the rule were satisfied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).