Paul Schuster v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the employer’s explanation “must actually be shifting and inconsistent to permit an inference of mendacity”
• observing that a business’s need to reduce costs was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for a reduction in force
• observing that a business’s need to reduce costs was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for a RIF
• noting that a plaintiff’s argument that only older workers were targeted for a RIF was not “persuasive” given that two younger employees were included in the RIF
• “Shifting and inconsistent explanations can provide a basis for a finding of pretext.” (citation omitted)
• “Shifting and incon- sistent explanations can provide a basis for a finding of pretext. But the explanations must actually be shifting and inconsistent to per- mit an inference of mendacity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).