Peter D. Perfetti v. The First National Bank of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when an employer gives one reason at the time of the adverse employment decision and another at trial that is unsupported by the evidence, “the jury could reasonably conclude that the new reason was a pre-textual after-the-fact justification”
• holding that when an employer gives one reason at the time of the adverse employment decision and another at trial that is unsupported by the evidence, “the jury could reasonably conclude that the new reason was a pretextual after-the-fact justification”
• vacating jury award where the plaintiff “presented almost exclusively indirect evidence” and “even that evidence was insubstantial” to sustain claim
• finding of pretext warranted “[i]f at the time of the adverse employment decision the decision-maker gave one reason, but at the time of the trial gave a different reason which was unsupported by the documentary evidence”
• inconsistent application of performance criteria provides basis for inference that explanation involving criteria is pretext for discrimination
• circumstantial evidence that the criteria or rules were inconsistently applied is material to a finding of pretext

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).