Richards v. Farner-Bocken Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ageist comments by co-workers were merely “ ‘stray remarks’ that, while indicating an age-discriminatory animus on the part of those employees, under the circumstances of th[e] case, [were] of no probative value as to [the employer’s] decision-making process.”
• requiring “something more” beyond temporal proximity to generate a genuine issue of material fact on causal element of claim of wrongful discharge but finding that evidence of pretext qualified as that “something more”
• applying burden-shifting analysis to wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim
• discriminatory comments by management level employees “may suggest a pervasively age-discriminatory attitude to employment decisions that a reasonable jury could find was also reflected in the [discharge] at issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).