Ronald Reed v. Neopost USA, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that stray remarks were not evidence of age animus in part because they were “sporadic”
• recognizing that Title VII does not protect from a hostile work environment or discrimination on the basis of age
• holding that incidental or occasional age-based comments, including references to an employee like “old man” and “old fart” were insufficient to support an age-based hostile-work environment claim
• holding that incidental or occasional age-based comments, including references to an employee like “old man” and “old fart” were insufficient to support an age-based hostile-work environment claim
• holding that evidence of co-workers’ use of “names like ‘old man,’ ‘old fart,’ ‘pops,’ and ‘grandpa”’ does not cteate a hostile environment without additional explanation of the comments’ “nature and context”
• explaining that CSC Logic test applies only to comments offered as direct evidence of discrimination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).