Robert TINKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that inconsistent statements regarding \who was actually responsible for the decision to fire\ revealed a genuine issue as to the proffered reason for termination
• concluding that inconsistent statements from individuals involved in plaintiff’s termination created a question of material fact
• holding that the employer met its production burden “by alleging that Tinker’s termination was the result of his violation of company policy on the preparation of work orders”
• finding that the terminated employee was replaced when another employee was promoted from part-time to full-time work
• holding employer “effectively replaced” plaintiff by promoting existing part-time employee to full-time status to assume plaintiff’s duties
• noting that the inconsistencies in the statements of different managers as to who was responsible for firing the plaintiff, and why, created a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).