Rachid v. Jack In The Box Inc

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that employer's ageist comments \to and about\ employee constituted evidence of age discrimination
• holding that Desert Palace requires a slight modification of the pretext requirements of the McDonnell Douglas framework
• holding that employers comments regarding employee being too old for the position constituted evidence of age discrimination
• holding that, under Desert Palace, “the direct evidence requirement has been removed from mixed-motive cases,” justifying the use of an “integrated,” “modified McDonnell Douglas approach” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that “violating a non-discriminatory company policy is adequate grounds for termination”
• explaining that, under the modified McDonnell Douglas approach, “the plaintiff must still demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).