Reshard v. Peters

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that plaintiff’s age discrimination claim is undermined where other age-protected employees were treated favorably by selecting official
• denying plaintiff “opportunity to conduct discovery” where plaintiff’s asserted need for discovery was “based on pure speculation”
• dismissing age discrimination claim where plaintiff and the selectee were both fifty- six years old
• dismissing age discrimination claim where plaintiff and the selectee were both fifty-six years old
• trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs Rule 56(f) motion proper where Plaintiff, in Plaintiffs affidavit, “failed to identify any ‘probable facts not available’ and to ‘state with specificity how additional discovery would rebut summary judgment motion.’ ”
• “The [D.C.] Circuit has extended to ADEA cases the evidentiary burden shifting analysis deemed applicable in Title VII discrimination cases by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas.” (citing Forman v. Small, 271 F.3d 285, 292 (D.C. Cir. 2001))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).